Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Commonwealth Immigrants

Mr. Gorden: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the rate of issue of vouchers for Commonwealth immigrants curing each of the past 12 months; and at what rate he intends to issue during the next three months.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): As the reply to the first part of the Question consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The issue during July will be 870 to achieve the annual total of 8,500 announced in the White Paper of 2nd August, 1965, and in August and September approximately 640 and 800, respectively.

Mr. Gorden: Can the figures be cut down still further, since so many dependants are coming in as a result of each voucher that is issued?

Mrs. Williams: The position, I understand, is that the present rate of vouchers will be maintained.

Sir C. Osborne: Why have the Government abandoned their own White Paper and allowed nearly three times as many people to come into the country as the White Paper said they would?

Mrs. Williams: I do not follow the hon. Member's question. The White Paper laid down a number of vouchers which would be issued, and these are being issued. It was made clear from the beginning that legitimate dependants would be allowed to come in. That is the position which the Government wish to retain.

Following is the information:

July, 1965
2,000


August, 1965
640


September, 1965
649


October, 1965
806


November, 1965
750


December, 1965
801


January, 1966
690


February, 1966
642


March, 1966
632


April, 1966
796


May, 1966
623


June, 1966
601

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that his Department is treating Commonwealth citizens less favourably than aliens in the matter of permission to work in entertainment in the United Kingdom; and if he will give instructions that such discrimination against Commonwealth citizens is to cease.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The systems of control over the immigration of aliens and Commonwealth citizens are not directly comparable, but in general the control exercised under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, is the more generous. I will, however, gladly look into any individual cases my right hon. Friend may have in mind.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Anthony Then, a Malaysian citizen, has been treated less favourably than if he were an alien? Would she get in touch with her right hon. Friend to see whether perhaps between the two Departments there has been some misunderstanding in this matter?

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that case to my attention. If the position is as he suggests, we will certainly see what action we can take.

Wages and Salaries

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Labour how many wage and salary settlements during 1965 were the results of negotiations which were initiated with no specific claim being made by the employees affected.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the larger industries or negotiating units covering 10,000 or more workers I know of 187 settlements which became effective in 1965, of these 91 resulted from claims which were not expressed in specific terms.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not rather disturbing news? Does it mean that in 91 cases claims were initiated without any specific figure? If that is so, how will the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend know whether such claims fall within or outside the norm and whether they should be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mrs. Williams: No, Sir. That is not correct. In most cases it is possible to make an estimate when the claim is first submitted. In most other cases the situation emerges as the claim progresses.

Mr. Nott: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has to provide a regional breakdown of the detailed analysis of wage earnings collected in April and October each year.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Regional breakdowns of earnings of adult men by industry and by industry group are already regularly published.

Mr. Nott: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that for regional planning it is necessary to have much greater detail in the regional figures than as yet exists? Will her right hon. Friend the Minister institute a procedure for collecting detailed figures?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member will, I hope, be aware that these statistics have only recently been improved. For example, the details by industry are now published in alternate issues of the quarterly publication Statistics on Incomes, Prices, Employment and Production. In addition, the most recent inquiries are published together with the relevant article in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Miss Quennell: Are the Ministry of Labour regions exactly conterminous with the national regions? If not, what method of adjustment is used in the Ministry to ensure that the figures correspond?

Mrs. Williams: There are two regions in which the Ministry of Labour's regions differ from the recently established regions, but we are bringing these into line as from early 1967.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Labour how soon after the months of April and October, respectively, the

detailed information on wage earnings is available to his Department; how soon it is published; and what steps are being taken to reduce these periods.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The information is available approximately three months after the end of April and October and provisional main results are released to the Press almost immediately; detailed results are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette a month later. It is not possible to reduce these periods.

Mr. Marten: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is vital for the operation of the incomes policy to speed up this process so that we can study the movement of wage drift? Will she not make a more determined effort to get these figures more often and to make them available more quickly to the House? Secondly, what was the committee to which the hon. Lady referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), on Question No. 5, which was satisfied with the statistics provided by the Ministry of Labour?

Mrs. Williams: The committee was an official committee of the Departments concerned. In reply to the remainder of the hon. Member's supplementary question, which I regard as a very fair one, I would say that we have tried to do two things. One is to see whether interim reports would give an adequate reflection of the final results, but I regret to say that they do not. Secondly, we have tried to ascertain whether we could shorten the period. The hon. Member will, however, be aware that this is a voluntary inquiry, and in our experience it is the firms employing the largest numbers of employees which tend to respond later in the period given them to reply.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would it not be better if all this concern about keeping down wages was devoted to keeping down overseas arms expenditure? Is it not the latter rather than the former which is primarily responsible for the deficit in our balance of payments?

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Labour if he now possesses sufficient information to determine the rates of wages actually paid by employers and the extent to which these differ from negotiated


or statutory rates; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have comprehensive information about statutory and nationally negotiated rates of wages. If further information about rates paid is required in order to assess a claim, offer, or settlement, the organisation concerned is asked to provide it.

Mr. Biffen: But is the hon. Lady aware that a Ministry of Labour publication last September stated that information was not available? In view of that, is it not remarkable complacency for her to come to the Box and say that the Department is satisfied with the comprehensive nature of statistics available to the Government?

Mrs. Williams: Statistics, by their nature, have to deal with the broad position. The hon. Gentleman's Question is concerned with rates paid individually by firms. He will be aware that the early warning system will give an opportunity to follow up the details with further investigations.

Mr. Ashley: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the amount of statistical material from her Department is much better and exceeds the amount of material given since 1964?

Mrs. Williams: That is very accurate.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour if he will compile figures of salary drift similar to those published for wages drift; and if he will publish those figures.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, Sir. The determination of salaries, many of which are negotiated on an individual basis, does not permit the compilation of a salary rates index for comparison with the index of salary earnings.

Mr. Lewis: Does not the hon. Lady agree that many of the increases are not negotiated on an individual basis and that it is not sufficient merely to have half the story, namely, information as to wages? It is necessary to have the other half of the story, namely, information about salaries, if there is to be an incomes policy.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an annual inquiry into salaries which covers 4 mil-

lion out of the 7 million salaried employees in industry. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that we make monthly inquiries from 8,000 firms in total, covering both salaried and non-salaried employees.

Mr. Moyle: Is not the Minister aware that these problems would be easier of solution if employers were placed under an obligation collectively to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with their staff employees and recognised trade unions?

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the hon. Lady aware that the state of the economy will not wait many more months? If the Government want to get things right, they will have to deal with salaries, wages and dividends at one go at fairly short notice.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the converted.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour how he determines by what amount salaries increase on account of salaried posts being filled at increased payments and fringe benefits when vacancies have arisen.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It would be quite impossible to assess the total effect of any cases of this kind. This does not mean, however, that a particular case would not be examined if it was thought necessary.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not true that the information coming to the Ministry about salaries is sadly deficient? The Ministry does not know about salary annual increases or about when men are taken on at the higher rate. In view of this, is it not impossible for the Government to establish an incomes policy for salary earners?

Mrs. Williams: No, this is not correct. Both in terms of salary rates and in terms of salary earnings, the Ministry has a great deal of information. The point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention in his Question is a difficult one, because a judgment has to be made as to whether this reflects greater responsibilities or whether it is simply a way to increase the salary being paid. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry is now undertaking a detailed inquiry into such things as the effect of fringe benefits on salaries and


on other types of earnings, and this should throw still further light on the problem.

Sir L. Heald: Is the hon. Lady aware that the House is very grateful to her for the brevity and courtesy with which she has dealt with almost 50 Questions?

Mr. William Hamilton: What is the legal distinction between a salary and a wage? Will my hon. Friend be assured that the incomes policy would be more generally accepted if and when the Government's information on all incomes becomes more and more comprehensive?

Mrs. Williams: I recognise the importance of making this information as comprehensive as possible. This afternoon I have given the House a number of details of ways in which we are trying to improve this information. The main difficulty is the individual settlement. I reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that an individual settlement can be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes just as much as a collective settlement.

Labour-Only Subcontractors

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour how many firms of labour-only subcontractors are now in existence; how many men they employ in total; and how they are to be classified for the purposes of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No figures are available of the number of firms of labour-only subcontractors, nor of how many men they employ. Most firms of this kind are likely to fall under Order XXII (Professional and Scientific Services) or Order XXIII (Miscellaneous Services) of the Standard Industrial Classification and will receive neither premium payments nor refunds under the Selective Employment Tax scheme.

Mr. Ridley: Ought not the hon. Lady's Department to know how many firms and how many people there are operating as labour-only subcontractors? Does it not make it extremely difficult to run the economy without this information? Does she not agree that the Selective Employment Tax is bound to encourage the development of this sort of thing?

Mrs. Williams: I fully agree that this information should have been available

a long time ago. The Government are at present undertaking a number of inquiries to try to establish this incidence. In answer to the second part of the question, the Government will, of course, keep very close watch on this development and the effect of S.E.T. on this group.

Mr. Channon: Does not the hon. Lady agree that it would have been wiser to await the information before introducing the tax? Would she not agree that an increase in the direct labour subcontracting force is against Government policy? Why introduce a tax which is bound to have the effect of increasing it?

Mrs. Williams: I fully agree that the Government are anxious to limit the amount of labour-only subcontracting. I do not accept the last part of the question.

Wages Councils (Proposals)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Labour how he will interpret the confirmation of wages council orders, in view of his increased responsibilities for the incomes policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Labour if he proposes to remit for further consideration wages council orders that are not consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Proposals from a wages council are considered in accordance with the duties and powers of the Minister of Labour under Section 11(4) of the Wages Councils Act. These require the Minister on receiving proposals to give them legal effect unless in his opinion it is necessary to refer them back to the council for reconsideration. He cannot amend or reject them. Each case is considered on its merits and taking into account the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Higgins: Would not the hon. Lady agree that all industries covered by these orders are likely to bring in increases equal to or above the norm? Can she envisage any circumstances in which it is likely that it will be below the norm?

Mrs. Williams: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, normally, because by definition wages councils are


in industries where there is no collective bargaining and, consequently, wages tend to fall well below the average level of earning; in the country. When efficient collective bargaining is established it is usual for the wages councils to be lifted.

Mr. Hall: Am I to understand that if a wages council order is not in accordance with Government policy the Minister can do nothing about it?

Mrs. Williams: Under the Act as it stands he can refer it back, but if the council decides to confirm it there is nothing he can do.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the Minister in fact use his power to refer back, or are we to take it from what happened in the road haulage case that he will never have the guts to refer back a wages council recommendation even when by his own admission he is worried by its impact on the Government's Prices and Incomes policy?

Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will know that there have been references back. He will also be aware, however, that most of these trades are such that they subscribe to the condition of the Prices and Incomes White Paper which covers very lowly-paid trades.

Incomes Policy (Statistics)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Labour what statistics he proposes to provide so that the effectiveness of the Government's incomes policy can be appraised.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Ministry already publishes a large number of relevant statistics, including statistics on wage rates, wage earnings, salary earnings and prices. The Central Statistical Office publishes estimates of the total wage and salary bill, profits, income from rent and self-employment, and the level of production.

Mr. Higgins: Does the hon. Lady agree that the statistics which are at present provided are quite inadequate to appraise the Government's incomes policy? Would she also agree that the relevant figures are for earnings and not wage rates? Should we not be provided with figures for wage drift? What action is the hon. Lady taking to provide

these figures so that we may have an idea of the real effect of the Government's incomes policy?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member will be aware, as a result of the expanded publication in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, that a number of statistics have been improved; and this improvement is still further in hand. Only recently an official committee of the Departments concerned concluded that by and large the statistics were adequate for the purpose.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is there not a great weakness concerning the salary position? Is it not true that the Minister does not have a clue about what is happening with salaries?

Mrs. Williams: That arises on a later Question and I will take it then.

Busmen (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Minister of Labour what discussions he has held with employers and unions following the publication of the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report on Pay and Conditions of Busmen.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on his recent talks with officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Federation of Municipal Passenger Transport Employers on the pay of provincial busmen.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend has had meetings with representatives of both sides of the two joint councils which represent the municipal undertakings and the company buses and commended the Report of the National Board for their consideration. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the statements issued after each meeting. I am having a further meeting with representatives of the National Joint Council for the Omnibus Industry which represents the company buses on 13th July.

Mr. Hordern: Will the hon. Lady give an assurance that if the pay increase of 6·6 per cent. envisaged in the Report is granted she will ensure that the productivity improvements which also were stated in the Report are obtained?

Mrs. Williams: I cannot give the hon. Member that assurance at this stage because, as he will know, negotiations are still continuing. I would, however, like to point out to him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has in hand the national programme for improving productivity, which was suggested by the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Labour what assurances he received from the Transport and General Workers' Union that they would implement the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report on Pay and Conditions of Busmen.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In his meetings with representatives of both sides of the national joint councils which cover municipal and company operations, my right hon. Friend received assurances that consideration would be given to the Board's Report, which he commended to them, during the current negotiations.

Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Lady aware that assurances were also given that the Phelps Brown recommendations would be implemented, but that very little has been done? Is she convinced that anything will be done to implement paragraph 120 of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board? If not, what steps will be taken to make sure that this is carried out?

Mrs. Williams: At the moment that is a hypothetical question. I would, however, point to a number of other industries in which trade unions and employers are fully co-operating to try to improve efficiency in those industries.

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated number of municipal and company undertakings, excluding London Transport, who negotiate pay and conditions for busmen.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the municipal sector, 92 of the 95 municipal undertakings are parties to the agreements of the National Joint Industrial Council for the Passenger Transport Industry.
In the company-owned sector of the industry, many of the smaller operators are not parties to any central negotia-

tions. Some 72 companies, largely representative of the larger employers and collectively operating more than half of the company-owned buses, are parties to the agreements negotiated within the National Council for the Omnibus Industry.

Mr. Alison: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer, but can she say how many of the firms she has listed, in both the municipal and the company sectors, have, since the publication of Report 16 by the Prices and Incomes Board on bus wages, reached a settlement in excess of the increase of 3–3½ per cent. recommended in the Report, and how many have reached a settlement lower than that percentage? If the hon. Lady does not have that information, what steps is she taking to secure it, and will it be published when available?

Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Order Paper, I will give him that information. I am afraid that I do not have it at present. Three municipalities are not tied by the agreement—Birmingham, Reading and Rochdale.

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Labour by what means he is informed of the various improvements in manpower use referred to in paragraph 120 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report on Pay and Conditions of Busmen.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Through the national joint councils concerned, with whom we are in close touch.

Mr. Alison: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the enormous number of variations and permutations of what is called in the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board "improving the use of manpower" can be built into a coherent and systematic measure of improved productivity which can be fairly applied in the sweeping way recommended for wage settlements in the Report?

Mrs. Williams: The National Board for Prices and Incomes Report suggested that these should be handled partly locally and that we should be kept in touch through national joint councils. I think that we should give an opportunity for that recommendation to work in that field.

Comprehensive Designers, incorporated (Aircraft Workers)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Labour how many skilled workers formerly employed in the British aviation industry are now known to have been engaged by the firm of Comprehensive Designers, Incorporated.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: This firm's British subsidiary informs me that it employs just over 400 skilled British workers, most of them with previous experience in the aircraft industry. I have no information about employment by Comprehensive Designers, Incorporated outside this country.

Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Lady aware that this considerable number of men is increasing, that they have been forced out of the British aircraft industry, as a result of the Government's policy, and that they no longer contribute to British technology? Is she proud of this state of affairs?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member is addressing his question to the wrong person, since many of my own constituents were pushed out of the aircraft industry under his own Government. The question is not without its other effects. In answer to the relevant part of the hon. Member's question, I would reply that this firm at present undertakes work entirely for an American company and, therefore, has a favourable effect upon the earnings balance of the country. I would further point out that the bulk of its recruitment is done privately and that in a free market we have no power to prevent this happening.

Trade Unions and Employers' Organisations (Report)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour when the Royal Commission on Trades Unions and Employers' Organisations will make its Report.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects the Royal Commission on Trade Unions to report.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer given

by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st June to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison).

Mr. Ridley: Is it not a disaster that this valuable Royal Commission should be filibustered away by the trade unions refusing to give their official evidence? Has the hon. Lady any idea when we may expect this evidence? Will she undertake that legislation will proceed, because we cannot afford to wait to reform the trade unions until the Report may be received?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member will he aware that the Royal Commission, which we also regard as important, was established only during the time of the present Government. In answer to the rest of his Question, I would point out that a great many trade unions have given evidence, but some evidence is admittedly still awaited. The hon. Member will, however, be aware that a number of surveys have been put in hand by the Commission, but reports on them have not yet been made.

Mr. Lewis: Does not the hon. Lady think that, in the present situation, if the Commission is allowed to go on for another period of months, or it may be a year or two, it will be fiddling while the economy burns?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member will be aware that in our view it is more important to get a thorough and careful report which is factually accurate than to get one which is pushed forward for reasons of public pressure.

Sir K. Joseph: Did the Minister ask for an interim report, and, if so, what reply did the Commission give him; or has the Commission asked the Minister whether he would like an interim report, and, if so, what reply did he give?

Mrs. Williams: The Commission pointed out with regard to an interim report that there were a number of interrelated problems which would make it difficult to produce an interim report.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady has not answered my question. Did the Commission ask whether the Minister wanted an interim report? If so, what reply did he give? Or was the Commission's observation to which the hon. Lady has


referred in reply to a request from the Minister, and, if so, what reply did the Commission give?

Mrs. Williams: The former part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is correct.

Sir K. Joseph: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Next Question.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Food Retail Prices

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange to publish in this country statistics concerning the retail prices of individual foods such as are already made available by his Department to the International Labour Organisation.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The average prices made available to the International Labour Office in respect of mid-October of each year are based on a relatively small number of quotations in seven large towns. They are considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of making rough comparisons between prices in different countries, but are not sufficiently precise for publication as average prices applicable to the United Kingdom as a whole. My right hon. Friend proposes to consider the possibility of producing for publication average prices which would be more representative.

Mr. Hynd: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and express the hope that her right hon. Friend will publish these statistics very soon? They will be extremely useful.

Cost of Living (Wages Agreements)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour how many workers have their wages and/or salaries tied to the cost of living, and in what industries; since prices are increasing faster than production, if he will take steps to end the position which enables one group of workers to benefit at the expense of others; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: About 2 million manual workers. The principal industries are construction, iron and steel manufacture, printing, furniture manufacture, footwear manufacture and hosiery. The White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy issued in April 1965 stated that less weight should be given to this factor in future in the determination of pay. An agreement reached in November 1965 in the building and civil engineering industries provided for discontinuance of the present cost of living agreements after February 1968.

Sir C. Osborne: Having regard to the fact that since October 1964 national productivity has increased by only 1 per cent. and the cost of living has gone up by nearly 10 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am stating the case—is it not grossly unfair that 2 million workers should get this advantage over other workers, and will the hon. Lady try to see that this inflationary factor is taken out of the economy?

Mrs. Williams: We do not wish people to suffer as a result of an increase in the cost of living, and earnings have kept ahead of increases in the cost of living; but as a proportion of the total wages bill increases over many years, dating back to the 1956 cost of living agreements have been only a very small part of this total, and, as I have already pointed out, in one very large industry they have now been abandoned.

Wage Disputes (Gross Earnings)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if, in every case of strikes or threatened strikes, official or unofficial, notified to his Department, he will have published the average gross wages normally earned by those involved in the dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, Sir.

Sir C. Osborne: Would it not be fairer to the general public to give these gross earnings in every case so that the public can more adequately and fairly judge the merits of a strike and whether or not the demand should be met?

Mrs. William: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to give a distorted impression, and it would be very


difficult for us to give anything else. Because of differences in occupations, levels of skills and so forth, almost any average we might make for such purposes would tend to be meaningless and open to distortion.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Lady aware that as these returns of strikes are often done through trade associations, many firms who pride themselves oft good labour relations do not give any notice and, therefore, the published figures are distorted?

Mrs. Williams: I am afraid that, again, in a voluntary system we must depend on which employers are prepared to report and which are not. I am sure that the hon. Member would be the last to want to make such reports compulsory.

Mr. Manuel: Would my hon. Friend agree that in cases of threatened strikes, or of strikes that are breaking out, or official or unofficial strikes, she should publish the rates of dividends earned by the particular industry?

Mrs. Williams: I think that that is a fair point. I am sure that if we did one we should do the other.

Railwaymen (Negotiations)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Labour what progress there has been in the negotiations started Fast March by Her Majestys' Government with the railwaymen; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: There was a meeting between representatives of the British Railways Board and the unions concerned under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend on 10th May, and since then there have been meetings on 2nd June and 1st July under the chairmanship of an official of the Ministry. These have discussed pay and grade structure, measures to increase productivity and efficiency, and the machinery of negotiation and consultation within the industry. Further meetings have been arranged for this month and next.

Mr. Marten: Has any progress been made?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, indeed. I am glad to say that a detailed review of pay

and wage structures has already been put in hand, machinery for negotiation and consultation is under consideration, and progress has proved highly satisfactory.

Nationalised Undertakings (Sick Pay Schemes)

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the response of the nationalised transport undertakings to his Parliamentary Secretary's letter drawing their attention to his policy on sex discrimination in sick pay schemes.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The British Railways Board has already replied noting the views expressed in the letter and informing me that they will be borne in mind in future discussions with the trade unions about the terms of sick pay arrangements.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that many on this side of the Chamber regard it as quite deplorable that this sort of discrimination should be practised by nationalised transport industries? Will she undertake to convey this sentiment to her right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport with a view to appropriate action being taken?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend may like to know that in my letter I made clear those sentiments to the chairmen of the nationalised transport boards responsible, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has also been informed of this letter being sent. I would add that this is a matter that has to be negotiated between both sides. Although we have brought this to the attention of the boards recently, sickness pay negotiations date from as late as last year.

Joint Works Safety Committees

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to provide for compulsory safety committees at places of work, which will include employees' representation.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend believes that joint consultative machinery on safety which is set up by voluntary means is preferable to machinery established under compulsion. Progress in the past, however, has been


extremely disappointing. He has, therefore, decided that, unless there is satisfactory progress over the next few years in the setting up of joint works safety committees on a voluntary basis, he will feel obliged, when the next major revision of the Factories Act takes place, to seek power to require the establishment of machinery for joint consultation in appropriate cases. He very much hopes that progress will be such as to make legislation unnecessary.

Mr. Archer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1927, when this measure was proposed, employers' associations asked for the voluntary system to be given another chance, that that chance was given, but that in the ensuing 38 years accident figures have risen from 148.000 to 269,000 a year?

Mrs. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his lesson from history, and also for his great interest in the subject. We shall certainly bear that lesson very much in mind.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While we all want to see more safety committees set up, is it not true to say that there are more people at work today than there were 30 years ago?

Mrs. Williams: There are, indeed, but I think the hon. Member will agree that in certain industries the accident rate has increased to an extent that is rather disturbing. It may be partly the effect of modern technology.

Mr. Murray: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when the review of the Factories Act, 1961, is to take place, and can she promise that there will not be any delay in having this review?

Mrs. Williams: Generally speaking, reviews of the Factories Acts tend to take place at 10-year intervals, but we shall certainly bear in mind the need to make changes at the earliest practicable date.

Waste Paper Processors (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Labour how waste paper processors and merchants are classified with reference to the Selective Employment Tax.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the Standard Industrial Classification waste paper merchants are classified to Heading 832.6 of Order XX. Makers of paper and paper board who process waste paper are classified to Heading 481 of Order XV.

Mr. Longden: Would not the hon. Lady agree that waste paper processors are not dealers or merchants but are processing raw material into a form which can be used in our own industry and can be exported? Is it not a pity that they should have been taxed?

Mrs. Williams: The difficulty is, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that the tax must be very clear in its classifications, and I think that it would be very difficult to admit waste paper processing to the manufacturing category. The S.I.C. does not do this. The work done by this industry is very useful from the point of view of the economy.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is not "manufacture" in any sense of the word to' take this raw material, process it and sell it? Would the hon. Lady receive favourably an Amendment to the Selective Employment Payments Bill to get this in the right category?

Mrs. Williams: The manufacturer of paper is so classified because he goes beyond simply processing waste paper. This is the distinction. But I am sure that it is open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to put down an Amendment to the Bill on this matter.

Low Wage Earners

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Labour what surveys have been undertaken by his Department into the problem of the low wage earners.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Some information about low wage earners is available from the Ministry's annual Family Expenditure Survey. The survey is being expanded in order to cover a larger number of households and this will improve the information.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that there are 200,000 or 300,000 families in which the father earns less than he would receive if he were on National Assistance? Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who support the incomes policy


believe one of the most essential needs of such a policy is to help those people penalised by very low wages?

Mrs. Williams: I assure my hon. Friend: hat the Government are concerned about this group of workers. It is basically a question of how best to deal with the position in which they find themselves. The number of adult men with gross earnings of less than £10 a week has fallen by half in the last year—from 400,000 to 200,000. Although this is not good enough, it is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Lady aware that under the Government's incomes policy there is evidence that this group of people has had smaller rises in earnings than the better-off people in the community? What sort of incomes policy is that?

Mrs. Williams: I find that an extraordinary supplementary question in view of the earlier questions raised about the wages councils which exist—[Interruption.] To be fair, the hon. Gentleman did not raise it, but many hon. Members on his side of the House were pressing us very hard. The wages councils are the best safeguard we have for the lower-paid workers.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my hon. Friend feel that it is high time that we had a national minimum wage?

Mrs. Williams: That is another question. If my hon. Friend would put down a Question I would be glad to deal with it.

Industrial Disputes (Union Recognition)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Minister of Labour how many industrial disputes took place between 1960 and 1965 due to the refusal of management to recognise trade unions for negotiation, consultation and other purposes.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Ninety-eight, less than 1 per cent. of all stoppages.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that to get a successful incomes policy off the ground the elementary human right of trade union recognition by employers must be accepted throughout industry? Will she consider introducing

as a compulsory measure the need for this in forthcoming legislation?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend may like to know that whenever a dispute arises from non-recognition of a trade union our officers go into the situation and see the employer. However, as my hon. Friend correctly states, there is at present no law under which they can enforce recognition. This is one of the matters before the Royal Commission. A good deal of evidence has been given on this matter, including evidence by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Ellis: When management refuses to recognise trade unions, what is the Minister prepared to do about it?

Mrs. Williams: I think that I dealt with that in my last reply. We send in our industrial relations officers immediately this situation is brought to our attention.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) referred to the necessity of getting the prices and incomes policy off the ground. Is it not necessary to get it recognised first by the trade unions themselves?

Mrs. Williams: The position with regard to the trade unions is clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some of them are in favour and some of them are not in favour; we may as well be frank about it. Even though there may be few disputes with regard to non-recognition of a trade union, they tend to add to the time lost through strikes. This is a matter about which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and many of his colleagues are concerned.

Manual Workers

Mr. Dickens: asked the Minister of Labour if he will initiate discussions with the authorities in the public sector with a view to ending the distinctions in the conditions of employment for manual and non-manual employees.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: There has been some progress in eliminating such distinctions in the public sector of employment. The advantages of staff status schemes are widely appreciated, but I think further progress can be best made in the context of negotiations about pay and conditions.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that her reply is, on the whole, very disappointing? The need is for a new Government initiative to break down this apartheid in industry. This completely unfair discrimination between manual workers and staff employees is entirely unacceptable to many of us on this side of the House.

Mrs. Williams: I would again repeat that my Ministry is very much in favour of this kind of thing, but my hon. Friend must recognise that we need to leave a certain amount of freedom about priorities to those engaged in collective bargaining.

Motor Repairs (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will extend Minimum List Heading 381 of the Standard Industrial Classification, motor vehicle manufacturing, to cover the modifying or repairing of items referred to therein and thus bring this heading into line with No. 383 which covers the repairing of aircraft and aero-engines as well as their manufacture.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, Sir.

Mr. Cooke: But is not this one of the absurd anomalies of the Selective Employment Tax—that if the hon. Lady were engaged in repairing aeroplanes her employer would get a premium, but that if she were engaged in repairing motor cars her employer would have to pay 12s. 6d. a week?

Mrs. Williams: If repairs are undertaken by manufacturing establishments, the repairing activities are classified as manufacturing, but if they are undertaken largely by retail outlets, or outlets concerned entirely with repair, they are not so classified. Motor repairs come largely within the second group of establishments.

Industrial Training Boards

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement with regard to the setting up of industrial training boards for commerce.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Certain commercial activities have already been

brought within scope of existing boards and my right hon. Friend has it in mind to set up boards for the main sectors of commerce after consultation with the interested parties. Discussions are expected to start about the end of this year.

Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the concern which exists among teachers in further education that certain industries in this sphere might be taking all this training upon themselves, that this will lead to too much specialisation, will make mobility of labour in future difficult and affect future retraining? Will she consider making the Ordinary National Certificate in Business Studies a required basis for all commercial education?

Mrs. Williams: The Central Training Council's Commercial and Clerical Committee is concerned with trying to coordinate all activities in commercial and clerical training as between different industries. The latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question raises a new point. Perhaps he would be kind enough to put down a Question to the relevant Department on that matter.

Scotland (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the percentage of Scotland's population engaged in gainful employment which will be unable to obtain any refund of the selective employment tax; and how this compares with the percentage in England and Wales.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is not possible to make precise estimates of this kind, but it is thought that the proportion in Scotland will be approximately the same as in England and Wales, namely, about 35 per cent. of the total working population.

Mr. Taylor: Is it not rather alarming that the Government have introduced this new tax without precise information? Does not the hon. Lady agree that in the Highlands, where more than 80 per cent. of employees are employed in service industries, this tax will cause a great deal of damage?

Mrs. Williams: In answer to the first part of the question, the only reason why


I cannot give absolutely precise figures is simply that the Bill has not yet passed through the House and we do not know how it will be amended. In answer to the second part of the question, I point out that the Government's many regional policies are devoted to trying to assist area like the Highlands. The effects of the Selective Employment Tax will be taken into account, together with the effects of the other regional policies.

Mr. David Steel: Does not the hon. Lady think it is unfortunate that one item of Government policy—the Selective Employment Tax—would appear to be cutting across the development area policy of other Government Departments?

Mrs. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to await the discussion on the Amendment to the Bill when it arises?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be very helpful to industry In Scotland if she would break up the figures with regard to the different areas in Scotland, particularly in the North-East as contrasted with the South-West, where the industries differ to some extent?

Mrs. Williams: I will bear my hon. and learned Friend's point in mind.

Parkgate Steel Works (Dismissals)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of employees and their grades who were recently dismissed by the Parkgate Steel Works; and how many have registered at the Mexborough Employment Exchange.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Most of the 125 workers discharged on 23rd May were in clerical grades, but 2 laboratory technicians, 1 metallurgist and 1 works study engineer were also affected. Five of them registered for other employment at the Mexborough Employment Exchange and all of these are now in other jobs.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that jobs are scarce within reasonable travelling distance for many of these people who have lost their jobs and that many of them are resident in my con-

stituency? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter so that employment of a suitable nature can be provided?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, we are aware of that. Therefore, I thought that my hon. Friend might be interested to know the figures for other employment exchanges. There are 44 people registered at Rotherham and one man at Maltby. Of these, all but four men and one woman are now employed.

Mr. O'Malley: What are the reasons for these dismissals? Is not one of the factors the substantial financial losses being made by this privately-owned steel plant?

Mrs. Williams: As far as the Ministry is aware, the main reason is the falling off in orders, which may be due to a number of factors.

Japanese Tyres

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Labour if he has now received an assurance that the rubber in Japanese tyres imported into this country has not been compounded with carcinogenic antioxidants.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We have received an assurance through the Japanese Embassy that the Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers' Association, which represents all Japanese tyre manufacturers, has decided that none of the known carcinogens will be used in future.

Mrs. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she realise that it was last September when Questions were first asked about these tyres, 1 million of which were due to be imported into this country in the following twelve months? If any action had had to be taken, the information would have come too late to be effective. Could she look at the machinery for obtaining information on possibly hazardous substances to ensure that such delays do not occur again?

Mrs. Williams: We are certainly grateful to my hon. Friend for her persistence in raising this topic. She might be interested to know that we are at present considering a draft Order in Council which will ban not only the import of carcinogenic substances themselves but all manufactured goods containing such substances.

Teachers (Immigrants)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to ensure that all qualified teachers who have applied for entry into this country are able to come in at the earliest opportunity.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Commonwealth citizens wishing to teach in the United Kingdom require vouchers. These are issued as quickly as possible after it has been established that the applicants are eligible for the status of qualified teacher in this country.

Mr. Gilmour: Once it is known that applicants are qualified, and as there is a great shortage of qualified teachers in this country, is it not indefensible to hold up their entry?

Mrs. Williams: The general machinery is that we consult the Department of Education and Science about qualifications. The delay between that and the issue of a voucher is normally not more than three months. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will bring it to my attention.

Mr. Hogg: I understand that the hon. Lady's Answer was confined to qualified teachers from the Commonwealth. What is the situation as regards non-Commonwealth citizens who may be qualified to teach and who desire to do so in this country?

Mrs. Williams: If they are qualified to teach, they are obliged to fill in an application form for entry, and, if it is accepted, they are then given a certificate of appointment. The numbers are not very large.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Western European Union; and to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to accept its recommendations.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): Her Majesty's Government value their membership of Western European Union

as the organisation fulfilling the purposes of the Revised Brussels Treaty of 1954. The Western European Union Assembly's recommendations are considered by the Western European Union Council so that replies agreed between the seven member Governments can be returned to the Assembly.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the British representatives to this Assembly are not elected by democratic process but represent only themselves, particularly when they indulge in frantic efforts to push the United Kingdom into the Common Market?

Mr. Thomson: I am no more responsible—nor are Her Majesty's Government—for the delegation to the Western European Union Assembly than I am for the views of hon. Members on either side of the House.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As one of the non-democratically non-elected members of the Assembly, may I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to make the greatest possible use of this Assembly, since this Assembly and this Union is the only place where the Six and Britain can work together?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government very much value the work of the W.E.U. Assembly, and its recommendations are very carefully considered. The difficulty is that its recommendations have to be dealt with on a basis of unanimity by the W.E.U. Council. Although Her Majesty's Government are sometimes sympathetic, we have to operate according to unanimity rules.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to mislead his right hon. Friend. Is it not a fact that the delegates to the W.E.U. are appointed by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Thomson: I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I have misled him in this matter. What I intended to convey was that once appointed by the Prime Minister formally their opinions are as independent in the W.E.U. Assembly as they are in this House.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no matter who appoints them they are not elected by democratic


process and that for the most part, to judge from what I have read of their deliberations, they talk a lot of poppycock?

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. PARLIAMENTARIANS CONFERENCE

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Parliamentarians; and to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to accept its recommendations.

Mr. George Thomson: Her Majesty's Government consider that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Parliamentarians Conference, to which they give financial support, provides a valuable opportunity for discussion between Parliamentary representatives of the members of the Atlantic Alliance. Although the conference has no official standing, we take careful note of its recommendations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although they have been talking for several years allegedly about defence, all that has happened is a constant deterioration in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and in relations between France and some of the countries in N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Thomson: In fairness, I do not think one should hold the Parliamentarian members of this Assembly responsible for any changes in the arrangements with regard to N.A.T.O. Her Majesty's policies are well known. I can only regret that my right hon. Friends' responsibilities and preoccupations in this House prevent them playing a more active part in some of these Assemblies.

Mr. John Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has not been some sign of deterioration in the work and the relationship with the W.E.U. as there appears to have been in the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians Council?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND DEFENCE INDUSTRY WORKERS

Mrs. Anne Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on research being conducted on the alternative forms of employment which could be made available to personnel in the Armed Forces and also to those persons employed on defence contracts in industry, following reductions or changes made in Great Britain's foreign policy commitments.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): We have studied the problems of redeployment of manpower which would arise from disarmament and arms control measures. Our general conclusion is we should need only to intensify present resettlement and retraining schemes. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the reply which Her Majesty's Government sent last March to a questionnaire dealing with this subject issued by the United Nations Secretary-General a copy of which is in the Library.

Mrs. Kerr: Does my hon. Friend recognise the extent to which the lack of research into the question of the redeployment of these people now employed in the defence industries may accentuate the difficulties which we in the Western world are experiencing with regard to disarmament? Does she not recognise that it is not only those who are now obtaining profits from the arms industries who are affected but large numbers of persons employed in the defence industries who are suffering from the fear of unemployment, and that this affects not only this country but the United States and other Western countries?

Mrs. White: I am afraid a cannot agree. We have considerable experience both of resettling Service men and of redeployment in industry.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Lady not agree that many of the British defence personnel are being redeployed to the United States anyway following her policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S TOUR)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent tour of South-East Asia.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to South-East Asia, with particular reference to his talks in Jakarta.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have nothing to add to my reply to Questions by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 4th July; and my Written Replies to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond, Surrey on the same day.

Mr. Griffiths: The Foreign Secretary did, as he says, make a report on his visit to Jakarta. My question deals with the S.E.A.T.O. meeting and he has not reported to this House on that meeting. May I therefore ask him two questions? First, was the meeting a success in the sense that he was able to persuade our allies that the Prime Minister's threat to reduce British forces in the S.E.A.T.O. area is something which they should not worry about; and second—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is long enough.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will study the various replies to which I have referred, he will see that although I did not make a statement on S.E.A.T.O., I did deal with it in reply to Questions. I cannot accept the implications of the rest of his question. The meeting was a success, though not in the sense which the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Jackson: The Foreign Secretary last week did not actually mention the economic situation of Indonesia. I wonder whether he could give an indication of the progress that he may be making in rephasing the Indonesian debts?

Mr. Stewart: That matter is now under discussion in London. I cannot make a statement on it at present.

Lord Balniel: Was the right hon. Gentleman able to satisfy his colleagues in S.E.A.T.O. that we are able to fulfil our obligations, in view of our withdrawal from Aden, the decision not to go ahead with the carrier building programme, and the decision to undertake substantial reductions in our troops in the most dangerous area of the world?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I was able to make clear to them, and I am sure it was understood, that we propose to honour our commitments under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty and to maintain a substantial presence in this part of the world. Thas was well understood and well accepted.

Mr. Dalyell: Would my right hon. Friend consult the President of the Board of Trade about easing the export credit guarantee arrangements in relation to Indonesian tin dredgers?

Mr. Stewart: That is a rather different question.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he has made in his policy of probing to find the best method of bringing Great Britain into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: 87. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further discussions he plans to have with the French Government regarding the Government's desire to join the Common Market.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Government have been taking every opportunity through international contacts of all kinds to explore the circumstances in which application might be made for entry. We shall continue these contacts with all members of the Community.

Mr. Griffiths: Since the recent statements of the German Government have indicated that the road to Europe may be an easier one than imagined whereas the talks with M. Pompidou suggested the opposite, could the right hon. Gentleman say now whether the British Government intend to begin negotiations for Britain's entry at an early date?

Mr. Stewart: I shall be dealing with this point a little later this afternoon during the debate. It is our intention, and I think it is the country's wish, to enter the Common Market if certain essential interests are safeguarded. I welcome the statement by the German Foreign Minister, because it indicates that country's desire to study the problems that will arise from our accession. That is, I think, what we now have to do.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend has referred to the country's wish to enter the Common Market. Will he be good enough to tell us, giving us chapter and verse, when the country gave any Government a firm mandate to enter the Common Market?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will notice that I said there is a wish to enter provided certain essential interests can be safeguarded. He will find a statement to that effect in the published statements of the party to which we both belong.

Sir H Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the talks with M Pompidou and with any of the other European countries concerned, the Government have in any way declared their intention to invoke Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome which, as he knows, deals specifically with the amendment to the Treaty made necessary by the arrival of a new member to the Community?

Mr. Stewart: In the event not merely of British entry but possibly of the entry of some of our E.F.T.A. partners as well, it is clear that a number of adjustments would be necessary. I think that is well understood on both sides.

Mr. Bellenger: In spite of the disturbed conditions, if I may so call them, behind my right hon. Friend, will he persevere in his efforts to bring Britain into the Common Market, as it is inevitable and is the only salvation for this country?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know that I can accept the phrase about it being the only salvation for this country. I think it must be realised that we must not look upon the entry to the Common Market as a panacea for our own economic problems. We have to deal with them anyhow, but it is, as has been repeatedly

declared, the policy of the Government to seek entry to the Common Market, provided that certain essential interests of ours can be safeguarded.

Mr. Ridley: As some of the Government's special conditions are beginning to appear incompatible with membership of the Common Market, will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that he puts joining the Common Market in front of these special conditions?

Mr. Stewart: I do not accept the assumption behind that question. It seems to me, indeed, that the actual movement of events since those conditions were first stated makes it easier, not more difficult, to comply with them.

S.O.E., FRANCE (MRS. HALLOWES AND MRS. SZABO)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ROBERT HOWARTH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what information, supplied by his Department, Mr. M. R. D. Foot, in his book "S.O.E. in France", based his references to Mrs. Odette Hallowes and the late Mrs. Violette Szabo.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 64.
I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to a letter by Mr. Foot to The Times, published today.
Mr. Foot makes it absolutely clear that it was not his intention to cast any doubt whatsoever on the worthiness of the awards of the George Cross to Mrs. Hallowes and the late Mrs. Szabo.
The book is Mr. Foot's and Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for any statements or expressions of opinion which appear in it, but as the publishers of the book they welcome this opportunity of associating themselves with Mr. Foot's letter by making it clear that they, of course, had no intention of casting any doubt, any more than Mr. Foot did, on the awards made to these two gallant ladies. Nor, of course, was any slur on their reputations intended.
Mr. Foot has expressed his regret for the distress which has been caused to Mrs. Hallowes and to the relatives of Mrs. Szabo by misunderstandings on this point, and I should like to add that of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Marten: While I appreciate the hon. Lady's statement, may I ask her whether she is aware that the book gives an entirely warped impression of the very gallant actions of Odette Hallowes and Violette Szabo? Does it not show up the absurdity of publishing a book which was based on only partial records without checking the text with those who were still alive and available to check the text?

Mrs. White: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Mr. Foot has made his apology in The Times this morning. He checked with a great many people. It was not possible to check with every person mentioned in the text. I would hope that, as these explanations have been made and as the text will be corrected in a reprint which is shortly to be made, we might perhaps leave the matter there.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is it not right that the Government, being responsible for the publication of the book, should make sure—there is an obligation on them, is there not—that the author of the book should consult the people to whom he refers in his book? Is it not grossly unfair that statements should be made about them without their having any chance of corroborating or refuting the statements?

Mrs. White: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he must appreciate that with a book which names an enormous number of individuals, it is clear that it would have been quite impracticable to have consulted every single one of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that this is true. Consultations were made by the author of the book with persons who were directing the operations concerned. He very much regrets, as we have already made clear, any mistaken impression which may have been given by what he said about any individuals.

Mr. Paget: Would my hon. Friend make it clear that the author was free to consult these people? What has been said is that he was confined to his sources and was not allowed to consult the broad

range of people whom he was talking about. If that is not true, that should be stated.

Mrs. White: It is the case that he was asked to look at the papers first before consulting individuals, but after that he was able to consult whom he pleased.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is not the true lesson to be learnt from this that official histories are a bad thing, since it is desirable that authors should retain freedom to express opinions and to revise journalistic assessments in the light of scholarship?

Mrs. White: The book was, in fact, very well reviewed by serious reviewers and historians. It is regrettable that one or two incidents were misdescribed, but I do not think that that detracts from the general value of the book.

E.L.D.O. (MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BRUCE-GARDYNE: To ask the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Ministerial conference of participants in the European Launcher Development Organisation in Paris on 7th and 8th July.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I will, with permission, answer Question No. 98.
At the third and final session of the Conference of Ministers it was agreed that the Initial programme (E.L.D.O. A) should be completed and upgraded by the development of inertial guidance and a perigee/apogee system to meet the requirements of a geostationary communication satellite as well as those of European Space Research Organisation (E.S.R.O.).
With effect from 1st January next there will be a new scale of contributions to cover all remaining work—U.K. 27 per cent. instead of 38·79 per cent., Federal Republic of Germany 27 per cent., France 25 per cent., Italy 12 per cent., and Belgium and Netherlands 9 per cent. to be shared between them. Australia remains a member of the present basis of making available facilities at the Woomera range.
It was also agreed that there should be an overall ceiling of commitments for participating states of about £118 million (331 million Monetary Units or U.S. dollars).
An operation equatorial site—necessary for the new programme—will be established in French Guiana. Test firings will continue to be made at Woomera.
The following steps were taken to improve the management of the Organisation and the technical and financial control of the programmes:

(i) Contracts are to be placed directly by the Secretariat on the basis of tenders and fixed prices wherever possible.
(ii) Separate project management directorates will be established.
(iii) Inspectors are to be appointed and
(iv) Annual reviews of projects are to be conducted.

The Conference also agreed arrangements to examine the problems of coordinating space policies in Europe.
I am sure that the House will welcome the outcome of these Conferences which has been to get a better E.L.D.O. programme, to which we contribute a more equitable share, combined with a greater sense of urgency and improved managerial and financial control.

Mr. R. Carr: We certainly welcome this arrangement, but can the Minister assure the House that by entering into it the Government have now firmly and finally reversed their previous decision to leave E.L.D.O. and can, therefore, now be relied upon to play their full part in achieving E.L.D.O.'s objectives?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government will ensure that Britain has a national space programme of its own sufficient to ensure a proper spin-off, technologically, into British industry and to make sure that British industry has the capability of getting its full share of international contracts?

Mr. Mulley: I must repeat again that the Government never had any intention of leaving the E.L.D.O. organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it unlikely that I should have been able to negotiate such an admirable agree-

ment if there had been suspicion of a lack of desire to play our full part in the organisation.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, it is part of E.L.D.O.'s value that we get technological spin-off. As I have said before, the basis of our space policy is this European co-operation, and it is against that, now that this is settled, that we shall judge our future national effort.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Was the choice of—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I will call the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) next. Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Was the choice of French Guiana rather than Darwin made on technical or political grounds?

Mr. Mulley: I gave full support to the Australian Government in putting forward their proposals, although, on balance, I think that the technical advice is in favour of French Guiana. When the Australians, in the light of the French technical and financial case, withdrew their claims for Darwin, I thought that was a very reasonable end to the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member whose Question it was for not calling him first. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Could the Minister explain this? If the Government never had any intention of leaving the project, why was he quoted as saying on his return to Paris last week that Britain had re-entered E.L.D.O.? Would he not agree that the way the Government have handled the whole affair has further undermined confidence in the British Government's intentions among our partners in Europe? Will this not have a serious effect on other projects, such as the air-bus?

Mr. Mulley: I do not remember having made any such statement as the one I have been alleged to make. I have never used a phrase like "We have re-entered E.L.D.O.", or anything else.
The air-bus is a separate project, on which we are only in the negotiation stage. No commitments have been entered into. The communiqué after the June meeting of the Conference of Ministers about this project recorded the cordial and co-operative atmosphere in which the meeting had been conducted. Our last meeting was conducted in exactly that frame of mind by all those who took part.

Mr. George Jeger: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very smart piece of bargaining. Can he say how much of this revised expenditure is to be spent on contracts in Britain?

Mr. Mulley: The future basis will be the same as in the past—that is, less administrative expenses, 100 per cent. of its contribution will be spent, as far as possible, in each member country. I think it likely that we shall get a shade more than 100 per cent. on that basis.

Sir B. Craddock: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something of the time scale? When is it hoped to have the first launching completed?

Mr. Mulley: With the improvement envisaged, the programme should be completed in 1970–71.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: If the completed project is to be a miniature of the American project, would it not be futile to continue with it? Will my hon. Friend bear that in mind?

Mr. Mulley: If the plans go well, the launcher will produce a capability of about four times that of the Early Bird satellite. This would be a useful and worth-while European capability in telecommunications.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Following the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), will the Minister accept that, to do the job properly, we have to have a home-based industry as well? Any spin-off we are to get will dwindle unless we have a home-based industry.

Mr. Mulley: There are great differences of view on the value of spin-off. Practically the whole of our contribution to E.L.D.O. will be spin-off for British industry.

Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever he may or may not have done in the past, the whole House, with the exception of the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright), will wish more power to his E.L.D.O.?

Mr. Mulley: I am much obliged.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming this agreement very much, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that, at the recent W.E.U. meeting in Paris, it was agreed that any European launcher programme should clearly be related to the international launcher programme as well?

Mr. Mulley: I do not know about the international launcher programme, but the international basis of communications satellites is under consideration.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I beg leave to raise a question of privilege of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, namely, the instructions which have been issued by the National Executive of the Transport and General Workers' Union to the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins), the existence of a contractual relationship between him and the union which controls or limits his complete freedom of action in Parliament and, in particular, which seeks to dictate the timing of his resignation as a Member of this House, and the connivance of the Nuneaton constituency Labour Party in this constitutional arrangement.
In raising this matter, I intend no reflection whatever on the right hon. Member for Nuneaton's personal integrity and honour. I have the highest regard for him, but I believe that he has committed a serious error of judgment in this case.
The matter of instructions has a long history going back at least as far as Edmund Burke. In Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774, he repudiated the proposition, advanced by his opponent, that a Member could accept what he called
… the coercive authority of such instructions …
from his constituency.
Burke said that the wishes of his constituents ought to have great weight with a Member and that he should give his unremitted attention to their business. He added:
But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
If Burke's doctrine is true with regard to his constituents, how much greater force does it have with regard to any outside body or sectional interest?
Erskine May, in Chapter IV, page 52, shows that the duty of Members to maintain the privilege of freedom of speech must prevent them from entering into any contractual agreement which purports to limit their absolute right to exercise their unfettered judgment in the House of Commons. The rule in this matter is explicitly given in a Resolution of the House passed on 15th July, 1947, when it was declared
That … it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 365.]
This Resolution arose out of a complaint by the late Mr. W. J. Brown, who was then Member of Parliament for Rugby, against attempts to influence him by the Civil Service Clerical Association, and it was my predecessor as Liberal Whip, now Lord Byers, who raised the complaint on Mr. Brown's behalf.
In its Report on this complaint the Committee of Privileges had this to say—and it seems to me that its statement is equally relevant to the case I am now raising:
The relationship between a Member and an outside body with which he is in contractual relationship and from which he

receives financial payment is, however, one of great difficulty and delicacy in which there must often be a danger that the rules of privilege may be infringed. Thus, it would certainly be improper for a Member to enter into any arrangement fettering his complete independence as a Member of Parliament by undertaking to press sonic particular point of view on behalf of an outside interest, whether for reward or not".
In the present case, there is a contractual relationship between the right hon. Member for Nuneaton and the Transport and General Workers' Union under which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that, following his resignation as Minister of Technology, he will resume his duties as actual General Secretary of the union instead of being the titular holder of the office as he was during his period in the Ministry, and the payment of his salary of £3,750 by the union and the refunding by the right hon. Gentleman of an agreed proportion of his Parliamentary salary to the union are only important as evidence of the nature of the contract into which the parties have entered.
The National Executive of the Transport and General Workers' Union, at its meeting last Wednesday evening, rightly said that it
… holds the view that it is not physically possible for the General Secretary to undertake the responsibility and duties of the General Secretaryship and at the same time remain a Member of Parliament".
The executive apparently did not consider the ethical aspects, but felt that the physical considerations alone meant that the right hon. Gentleman should resign
… at the earliest possible moment".
Yet the resolution passed went on to say that the executive
… would expect the General Secretary to play a major part in the opposition to the Bill in the House of Commons …
and that it was agreed that, for the time he remained a Member, he would refund an agreed amount from his Parliamentary salary.
This was open to the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman should at least remain in the House until the Prices and Incomes Bill had passed through all its stages, but since the right hon. Gentleman announced that he would be seeing the management committee of the


Nuneaton constituency Labour Party on Saturday
… to see how we can give effect to the view of the Union's Executive …
as he put it, one might have expected that the meeting would call on him to resign forthwith, bearing in mind that he no longer intended to represent the people of Nuneaton, but the union's executive.
It is ironic to reflect that the right hon. Gentleman who replaced him as Minister of Technology fought a hard battle for his constituents' rights, which many of us supported, while in Nuneaton those rights are being given away to a body that is not represented in Parliament at all, by a small minority of the electorate in that constituency.
Contrary to the view of the National Executive of the Transport and General Workers' Union, the constituency Labour Party decided on Saturday that there was no incompatibility between the right hon. Gentleman's resumption of his duties as General Secretary of the union and his continued membership of Parliament. Far from calling on him to resign forthwith, it appears to have asked him to remain indefinitely as its Member of Parliament. I claim that the matter could not have been raised until Nuneaton Labour Party had had this opportunity of considering it, because of the ambiguity of the executive's resolution regarding the right hon. Gentleman's continued services as a Member of Parliament and that this is, therefore, the first opportunity which have had.
I ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be good enough to give your Ruling on whether the contractual agreement entered into between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the right hon. Gentleman and the endorsement of that agreement by the Nuneaton constituency Labour Party constitute prima facie a breach of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for letting me know in advance of his intention to refer to this matter. The whole House will appreciate his opening

words, for in this place any quarrels which we have are political and not personal.
The House will appreciate that in what I am about to say I am concerned only with the procedure aspect of the hon. Gentleman's submission and not with its merits. Any Motion taken at the time for raising a matter of privilege has to be given precedence over the prearranged programme of public business, but before the Chair can submit such a Motion to the House two conditions have to be satisfied. Of these two the one condition with which I am concerned this afternoon is whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.
The right of an hon. Member to raise a matter of privilege and the duty of Mr. Speaker to give it precedence are bound by two distinct sets of rules. It is a strict rule that to secure precedence an issue of privilege must be brought before the House at the earliest opportunity. In particular, it has been held that in the case of a matter covered by London newspapers of daily circulation, it must be produced to the House on the day of issue, or at the first sitting of the House after the day of issue.
As my predecessor reminded the House on 10th December, 1953, this is a very important rule of our procedure and the exception which was made on that date affected a paper which, though printed in London, had a very limited circulation and was, in any case, brought to the Table on the day of issue.
The matter to which the hon. Member for Orpington has referred today was fully reported in the Daily Express on Friday, 8th July. That was the appropriate day on which the hon. Gentleman should have sought to raise the matter. It is now out of time and, although he is fully entitled to take such other opportunities as the procedure of the House offers him, I cannot allow the matter precedence over the business of the House.
This is not merely my own Ruling. A Resolution of the House passed as recently as 2nd November, 1960—col. 317 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—prescribed as a condition of the hearing of complaints of breach of privilege that Mr. Speaker must be satisfied that notice had been given at the earliest opportunity.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order. I wish to raise a matter which I allege to be a serious breach of privilege.
On 29th June, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I raised the issue of a book which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I have consistently refused to name. As you may know, on that occasion I tried to spy strangers, but the House decided against my request.
Yesterday, my attention was drawn to an advertisement in the Sunday Times, which I propose to read. It mentions at the top the name of a book, the author, the publishers and the price. It goes on to say:
Sir Charles Taylor. M.P., described it as: 'Filthy, disgusting, degrading.' But 'One of the most important novels to come out of America,' says the Daily Telegraph"—
I need not bore you further, Mr. Speaker, with the rest of the Press quotations.
The advertisement adds:
What are they talking about? You can only find out by ordering a copy right now from: Better Books, 94 Charing Cross Road. London, W.C.2. (Telephone Temple Bar 2544.)
I have made only one speech about a book when, as you will be aware, Sir, I did not mention the name. Subsequently I placed a copy in the Library for the confidential and private information of hon. Members. I regret very deeply that certain hon. Members broke that confidence by making public the name of the book.
I submit that it is outrageous and monstrous that my name should have been used in an advertisement for the sale of

this book and I ask your protection against the newspaper concerned, which accepted the advertisement, and the advertisers. This is a matter which has caused me personally, my friends and my constituents, considerable distress.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir. C. Taylor) bring the newspaper cutting of which he complains to the Table?

Copy of newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: Again, my comments must be precedural and not on the merits of what the hon. Gentleman has said. In accordance with usual practice, I will consider the complaint raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I will give my Ruling on it tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,

That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bowden.]

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]

Bill referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Bowden.]

LAND REGISTRATION BILL [Lords]

Bill referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[3rd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1966–67

CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £11,582,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £856,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967. for expenditure by the Foreign Office on sundry grants and services, including subscriptions. & c., to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid.—[£7,967,000 has been voted on account.]

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Lawson],— put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: Our procedure so far this afternoon has been varied. Now that we are starting on the second day of the foreign affairs debate, it is, perhaps, reasonable that I should start by saying that this is an unusual setting for the debate. It has been divided by a period of several days, the first half taking place last Thursday and the second half today. I understand that it is accepted, that after the debate last week on Vietnam, we should concentrate today more on general questions of foreign affairs, and in the course of what I have to say I shall refer to Europe and some of the European problems, to South Arabia, and to Gibraltar. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will answer some of the points which we on this side of the House would like to put to him on these very important matters.
Although the system of debating Vietnam last week and the rest of foreign affairs today was probably the best practical solution in the circumstances, when the House as a whole clearly wanted a debate last week on Vietnam, it creates a slightly unreal situation today. We do not want to rehearse again the arguments of last week, but on the other hand, it is only realistic to say that the shadow of Vietnam hangs over every other major problem in the foreign field.
This is what the Prime Minister will find when he visits Moscow later this week. I spent last week in Moscow, at the British Trade Fair, and I had the pleasure of meeting many of the Russian political figures. Unfortunately, I could not see Mr. Kosygin this time because he was in Bucharest for the conference there, but I met many others, including the redoubtable figure of Mr. Shelepin, and I got a clear picture of how the Russians look at this problem.
My reception, as always in Moscow, was personally cordial and frank, but the Russians have a clear and decisive outlook at present which they drove home to me with some vigour. They talked about the recent Warsaw Pact conference in Bucharest, from which, in effect, two communiqués emerged. One was about the possibility of a détente in Europe, and one was on the situation in Vietnam.
The first was rather encouraging in tone, looking for agreement, for ways of slackening and lessening tensions in Europe. The other, on Vietnam, was different in tone and character, talking of volunteers, if necessary, going to Vietnam. What struck me was that in the minds of all the Russian leaders whom I met it was the second communiqué to which they attached importance. Mr. Shelepin went out of his way, in talking to me, to say that this communiqué about volunteers should be treated, in his own words, very, very, very seriously indeed. This is the background that one will find in Moscow at present.
The argument that I found was this: the Russians believe that the world is now almost on a razor's edge, a phrase which was used to me; and that the dangers have grown considerably. They said that the situation in Vietnam was for them in many ways a touchstone of the position and the policy of other countries.


But they went on to say, with which I could not agree, that the difficulty they found in dealing with Britain at present was that, in their opinion, we did not have an independent foreign policy at all but were merely the satellite of the United States. This is the impression we must dispel. It is clear that the Prime Minister's action in dissociating himself and the Government from the bombing near Hanoi and Haiphong has not had the desired result of impressing opinion in Russia. As so often happens with this type of scheme, or device, one finishes up by having the worst of both worlds, having earned a bit of distrust from the Americans for apparently having deserted them and no more trust from the Russians.
They are not impressed, and I do not think that they will be impressed, by occasional divergences from American policy. They will be impressed if we make our own point of view absolutely clear, consistently and frankly, without holding back in any way, showing why we are supporting the Americans, not became we are satellites, and not because we are in thrall to them in any way, but because we believe that they are right. This is the way that British spokesmen should talk to the Russians at present. An immense service can be done to the cause of freedom and understanding among the great nations by this sort of frank talk and sticking to a consistent policy, honestly believed in and honestly argued for.
The relations between the United States and Russia are the key to the whole future of the world. I do not think that it is overstating the case to put it that way. The more I go to those two countries, the more I am impressed by the similarity between the ordinary people in them, the tremendous similarities I find between Russia and America—the size and scale of things in both countries, the great hospitality and friendliness of individual people and their great absorption in technology and modern science, in industrial, engineering and chemical developments.
There are these great likenesses and affinities between the two countries, and yet the curtain of fear and suspicion, which is the world's tragedy at the

moment, falls so often between them. This is where the Prime Minister and this country can serve a purpose. I do not believe that the present leadership of the Soviet Union intends to indulge in escapades and adventures of the type which we saw under an earlier dispensation. They want to consolidate their own country, to expand and strengthen their own economy; and there is a tremendous amount still to be done. That is what they want to do, and they possibly resent the situation and dangers of Vietnam most of all because they appear to be cutting across and interfering with the task which they have in front of their eyes in their own country.
On the other hand, I do not believe, as the Russians do, that the purpose of the United States in South-East Asia is aggression and expansion. The Americans do not want territorial expansion there. They are not seeking treasure there. They are spending their treasure, blood and lives for a cause that they believe to be right. So, we have two great nations, neither wanting to contemplate aggression but both suspecting the other.
Cannot we now, with our fairly frank relationships with both countries, do something to dispel the cloud of suspicion and fear which bedevils more than anything else the prospect of peace in the modern world? I believe that the put-poses of British foreign policy have been changed by two enormous developments in world history in recent years. First, the emergence of the super-Powers, Russia and the United States, on a scale of military and economic force, but certainly military force, incomparably greater than any other country, which has distorted the traditional patern of international relations to a remarkable degree. The second great new development has been the emergence of nuclear weapons, with not only their danger of world destruction, but also, for the first time in mankind's history, a real chance of lasting peace.
Many times in the past, people have said that war has been too horrible to be possible, but it happened. However, this time it is true. But the tragedy is that this has come too early in a sense, before we have an international organisation capable of realising the possibilities that now lie in front of us. The United


Nations should be doing it, and I believe that it will some time be capable of doing it, that it can grow into a world system of law and order enforceable on a proper democratic basis.
But it cannot do it now, as is well recognised in the constitution of the United Nations itself and, in particular, in the system of veto in the Security Council. So all still depends upon the concert of the great Powers. All our efforts in this country must be directed to achieving that concert between the great Powers upon which the strength and development of the United Nations can be based.
I believe that our influence in the world and the degree to which we can exert it now depend mainly on three factors. The first is our own resources, particularly economic resources, the strength of our economy, and the wisdom with which we allocate our resources between the many calls upon them. Second, the strength of our foreign policy depends on the alliances we have with our friends throughout the world, on the strength of those alliances and their cohesion. Third, it depends on maintaining confidence in Britain, in the British Government and in British adherence to treaty obligations. All these three are inter-linked. Without the resources we cannot help our friends, and, if we do not help our friends when they need help, our resources may turn out to be quite useless.
First, let us look at the problem of resources. We are to have a debate on our economic problems later this week, and I shall not anticipate that, but I believe that what we must do is to give priority to what is really needed most, and what is needed most is expenditure designed to maintain British policy overseas and to maintain British influence in the councils of the world. Too often, we say that we cannot afford something when, if we are frank, what we really mean is that we will not afford it. On many occasions, we say we cannot do something because we have not the resources, and what we mean is that we have not the resources unless we are prepared to sacrifice something else for that purpose. We must as a country be prepared, first, to find the resources which

are necessary for the maintenance of the British position in the world.
We must then regard expenditure in support of policy abroad as one, allocating priorities within it for expenditure on defence, expenditure on diplomatic services, expenditure on aid, expenditure on propaganda. All these things are part of one purpose, maintaining Britain's position and furthering British policy. I wonder sometimes whether, in the past, we have got our priorities wrong, whether, for example, the effort—propaganda is not quite the right word—to explain to the world the purpose and reasons of British policy has been pursued as it should.
All Chancellors of the Exchequer—I plead guilty to this—tend to underestimate the importance of this service, probably because it cannot be measured in terms of money. We cannot see what we get for the expenditure we make. I believe that the time has come to give a little more emphasis to efforts of this kind in our total overseas budget.
Next, there is expenditure on aid. I would never accept the view that the purpose of overseas aid is to attach strings to the policies of other countries. It seems to me that aid is a duty which we owe to others, sometimes an infuriating duty when the people who receive aid seem almost to throw it back in our faces. But we must persevere. It is a duty which we in the industrial world owe to the developing world.
But in developing our aid we must be concerned to present an improving picture of Britain and the British people in the world, and this is why I hope very much that, in developing our aid programme, we shall lay more emphasis on individual efforts, on voluntary service overseas, on the rather remarkable efforts which are being made by young people in this country to go out to help, guide and lead the people of the developing countries.
The change in this country which has arisen from the disappearance of Empire is more profound than is often realised. For many years, it took much of the energy, force and vision of our young people to go out and govern an Empire. Now that is gone, and they are looking for something else. I believe that they can find that something else in this effort and voluntary service


overseas, not in ruling or governing, but in guiding, teaching, assisting and aiding. Anything that the Government can do to encourage and help this voluntary service must be of immense benefit to this country's standing in the world.
Within the funds we allocate to defence expenditure as part of our overseas policy, we must, clearly, get our deployment and our priorities in deployment right. I am sure that it is right to continue to maintain a position east of Suez. In the context of history and the context of Britain at the present time, this is right. The cost is heavy, of course. We must aim to reduce this expenditure, but it must be reduced only at the right pace and only as far as can be done consistent with our obligations in that part of the world.
Orke looks forward to a time when a new balance may arise spontaneously in the Indian Ocean or the Far East. There are signs of it already. There are new organisations of non-Communist States and new groupings slowly developing, as Mr. Holt, the Australian Prime Minister, pointed out at his Press conference. But would these rather tender plants be able to grow and flourish if the Anglo-American presence were abruptly removed from South-East Asia? I am sure that, by maintaining our position there, we are contributing essentially to the growth of organisations east of Suez and in South-East Asia which—the sooner the better but in the fullness of time—will be able to take over for themselves the responsibilities of defence in that area.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more precise in the reference to the cost of this policy and state that it would, in fact, cost considerably more than the £2,000 million budget planned by the Government?

Mr. Maudling: I remember that, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was difficult to get an exact calculation of the total cost of operations east of Suez. What I am certain is that, when we have commitments of this character, we must find the money for them and that, by abandoning them, we may put even further away the day we hope to see when new defence arrangements in this part of the world can be managed on a local

basis, by the countries themselves or by organisations of those countries themselves. Too premature a withdrawal of British and American influence will not ease our problem in the long run or reduce our expenditure in the long run. It may even make it higher.
We have our commitments there. We have our commitments to Australia. We have our commitments still in Malaysia. We have very serious commitments in the Persian Gulf. We have, I believe, a moral commitment to help the people of the Indian sub-continent, particularly to help India if attacked again by China. All of these are remaining commitments to which we must give priority in deciding how to use our resources in support of policy and in the furtherance of British interests.
It is a heavy burden, of course, arid it is difficult for us both to bear the burden east of Suez and to bear a share of the burden in Europe as well when so many of our competitors are not doing the same. It is not realistic to expect to see other European countries taking any military position east of Suez, but it is, surely, realistic to expect them to take into account our world-wide effort in assessing the comparative effort being put by the N.A.T.O. partners into European defence.
This applies particularly, for example, to the German support costs. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, or whoever is to wind up the debate, will say something about progress in the negotiations with the Federal Republic on support costs. We heard some very brave words from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few months ago about the great improvement which was to be made and the determined stand which the Government would take. We have not heard so much recently, and we should like to hear today exactly what position has been reached.
This brings me to the N.A.T.O. Alliance and the need to change the form and structure of the Western Alliance to take account of present-day realities. There has been, since its foundation, a great change, obviously, in the relative strength of the United States and the European partners in the alliance, a great change particularly in relative economic strength, and there has been a shift in the area of threat to the Western world,


with the threat obviously receding in Europe and growing east of Suez.
The French action has only brought matters to a head. The time had clearly come for a revising of N.A.T.O. to take into account modern considerations. We regret, I think, the manner of the French action, but I hope that regret will not lead to any form of recrimination, because the purpose now must be to rebuild as much as possible of the military deterrent strength of N.A.T.O., and also to rebuild political confidence both within Europe and between Europe and the United States, which could be threatened if these latest developments were allowed to lead to argument, bickering and squabble among the various N.A.T.O. member countries.
The new structure to aim at must be based, first, on a continuing United States presence in Europe and, secondly, on a proper relationship between the United States and her European partners in the Western Alliance. It would be folly for Europe alone to try either to match the conventional armed forces of the Soviet Union, or to duplicate the nuclear forces of the United States. Both of these efforts, vast and costly, would be a waste of the West's resources.
In the foreseeable future the great military Powers, the United States and Russia, will continue to exceed all of their allies in force and continue to dominate the military scene. But I do not believe that all partners in an alliance have necessarily to be of the same size and I am sometimes a little disturbed by the way in which, when the Atlantic Alliance is discussed, people appear to imply that one must have a Europe which is as strong as America just for the sake of it.
I am not sure that this is wise. Partnership implies not equal size or equal strength, but equal commitment to the aims and purposes of the partnership and equal willingness of all persons however big or small, to respect and look after the interests and views of their other partners. This is the principle upon which N.A.T.O. should be developed. At the same time, should we not be looking at new things for N.A.T.O. to do? At a time when morale is rather low, and shaken by recent developments, is it not wise to look for

new functions, purposes and opportunities for N.A.T.O?
There could be more regular consultations about the problems arising outside of Europe. There is also the question of disarmament. There seems to have been very little progress in this direction over the last 18 months. The co-ordination of overseas aid, East-West trade and a new approach to the Warsaw Pact countries are other subjects which might usefully occupy N.A.T.O's attention.
The approach to the Warsaw Pact countries could be based upon the thinning out of forces, though certainly not upon disengagement. The Warsaw Pact communiqué of the last few days has not given great grounds for hope, based as it appears to be mainly on the determination to exclude the United States from any participation in the European framework of future security structure. Any such exclusion of the United States would be disastrous from the Western point of view.
Along with such developments in N.A.T.O. goes the question of our relations with the European Economic Community. I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary one or two questions about this. Only recently, we had the visit of the French Prime Minister, followed by the long communiqué dealing, in particular, with our relations with the Community. The terms of the communiqué have certainly caused some disappointment, and may have disappointed the Foreign Secretary after the rather optimistic things that he was saying a little while ago.
It is important not to overdo the disillusionment and not to be too easily disappointed. As disclosed in the communiqué, the French position may appear to be rather stiff and unyielding. In the original Treaty of Rome there are plenty of protocols dealing with the problems of particular countries. When one comes to think of it the French have had a long battle to establish the present system; these things have been argued about inside the Community time and time again and agreement has been reached only with very great difficulty, sometimes with great pain and grief. Why should they want to see this situation disturbed unless they are confident that the British Government really mean business? This may be difficult.
I do not believe that so far the French Government are really convinced that the British Government, the party opposite, are committed in their hearts to the idea of joining the Community. If a member of the French Government was here at Question Time this afternoon, and heard the reaction from hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, he would have had his fears confirmed. Before we can judge the French attitude in these discussions we must ask what was the attitude taken by the British Government? This was very unclear. The communiqué says that Britain was ready to join the Community:
… provided her essential interests could be met.
What does this mean? This is a phrase used constantly, and used again this afternoon by the Foreign Secretary. It is no good sticking to the words without spelling out what they mean.
Do they mean the five conditions, still pristine in their spendour and unchanged? Do they mean what was said in the Prime Minister's speech at Bristol, in March, when he derided the whole idea of import levies—the foundation of the agricultural policy of the Six? If this is what "essential interests" means then it is not surprising if the French attitude is rather stiff and unyielding. It is important that the Foreign Secretary makes clear what line the British Government have taken in discussions with France on this matter. What were the conditions to which they are referring and what are the conditions which they now place upon British entry? Vague talk and reiteration of this phrase can only make progress toward agreement on negotiation more difficult and prolonged.
I want next to deal with the question of maintaining confidence abroad in the policy of the British Government and their willingness to stick by their international obligations. There have been one or two examples in the last 18 months which have caused concern abroad. There was the way in which the surcharge was imposed, without any consultation with our E.F.T.A. partners; the mention of the Concord in the original White Paper of October, 1964, sticking out like a sore thumb from that White Paper and causing great annoyance to our French allies. There was also the recent episode about E.L.D.O.
Despite the Prime Minister's sturdy defence of the Foreign Secretary, he appeared to say something inconsistent with British commitment to E.L.D.O.
We have an agreement on the Channel Tunnel. Yet the agreement just announced goes not one point beyond the position reached under the Conservative Government several years ago.
The most serious example of the way in which the Government have worried some of our friends overseas arises in South Arabia, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will address himself to this. The position is this—and I will he corrected if I am wrong. Our relations with that country were governed first by the 1959 Treaty of Protection and then by the 1964 Conference, when the delegates asked that Britain should agree to independence for the Federation while continuing thereafter to assist in its defence. The then Secretary of State announced the agreement of the British Government to this request and this was published after the 1964 Conference. It was an absolutely clear and binding undertaking to help the Federation after independence.
I understand that this was discussed at the time between representatives of the Federation and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who indicated that the then Opposition would carry out the undertakings given by the then Government. I understand, also, that the High Commissioner subsequently confirmed this and that similar things were said during visits to Aden by the Minister of Defence and the then Secretary of State for the Colonies.
If all of this is true, then it is no wonder that the announcement about Aden came as a great and bitter blow to our friends in that part of the world. At the time I was in Saudi Arabia and I remember that the announcement came as a shock to people there and gave joy to the propagandists of Radio Cairo, who claimed that they had triumphed. It caused great sorrow and disquiet to our friends in that area. There is no doubt about the Federal Government's reaction. There has been a certain amount of an attempt to blur the issue, but there is no doubt that the Federal Government believed that they had been let down by Britain, and let down very


badly indeed. The Aden Government said then in a statement:
All discussions about independence, and the mention of 1968 as the year of independence have been based on the assumption, in which we have been consistently encouraged by the British Government, that after independence there would be a Treaty providing for the British to continue to defend the Federation…. Do you not think that the whole Arab world will regard us as fools for having placed such reliance on the solemn promises of the British Government?
This is a matter which must be cleared up once and for all, because if it is true that the people of the Federation of Arabia have reason, as they appear to think they have, to believe that solemn undertakings have been broken by this Government, what chance have we of maintaining the confidence which is so essential in other parts of the world?
It is true that since then there have been discussions about military aid and money to help build up their forces, but that is a pretty poor substitute, and reference to the United Nations is also a pretty poor substitute for the British guarantee upon which they thought they could rely. The aid proposed will not enable the people in this part of the world to stand up to the Egyptian Air Force if ever the time comes when that is necessary. I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary to clear this up, because at the moment it hangs over British credit over a large area of the world.
My final point concerns Gibraltar. Discussions are going on with the Spanish Government about Gibraltar. I appreciate the difficulties of making a statement while talks are going on, but this is very important. There is growing disquiet both here and in Gibraltar at the course which these discussions are taking, and the House should be informed. We recall the statement made by the Minister of State on 29th October last year, that
Her Majesty's Government remains ready to entertain proposals by Spain for conversations but cannot embark on substantive discussions as long as an abnormal situation on the frontier continues and cannot regard sovereignty as a matter for negotiation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 98.]
Since then talks have begun, despite an abnormal situation on the frontier. I recognise the desirability of improving our relations with Spain. There has not always been the same recognition on the

other side of the House. But, accepting that, I think that it is most important that we should have a categoric assurance that there is no question of conceding sovereignty in any way to Spain over Gibraltar against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar themselves.
At Question Time the other day I asked the Colonial Secretary to make a statement on this issue. He did not know the answer then. I do not know whether he knows it now. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman about the talks with Gibraltar, he referred me to the Foreign Secretary, because apparently the well-being of the people of Gibraltar is no longer the concern of the Colonial Secretary. I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary will take this occasion to give a categoric answer to this question: will the Government give an undertaking that there is no question of ceding any sovereignty over Gibraltar to Spain against the wishes of the local inhabitants? I hope that my question is clear. I hope that the answer will be equally clear.
I have covered a fairly wide range of problems this afternoon. I have put some points to the Foreign Secretary. I hope that we may have an answer on Arabia. I hope that someone will answer on Gibraltar. I hope very much that we shall have a clear answer about the talks with the French, and what these conditions are for our entry into the Common Market. I hope, above all, that when the Prime Minister goes to Moscow he will recognise that the biggest job that he can do in the world at the moment is to try to promote more understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The right hon. Gentleman can do that only by eschewing gimmicks and easy ideas of swift solutions, and by adopting a consistent, honest, and straightforward policy which he should put forward, stick to, and explain as the policy of this country.

4.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): At the opening of his speech the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that although we debated Vietnam last week, we are all aware of the influence of the Vietnam situation when we discuss other aspects of foreign policy. The


House has for some time been considering whether foreign affairs debates are best conducted by a general debate which can range over the whole world, or whether it is better to divide it into sections and debate on one day Vietnam, on another Europe and the Middle East, and so forth.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman's comments describe the choice that we have to make. There are obvious advantages in dividing the debates by subject, but we have to recognise that if we do so we shall in each debate be handling only certain pieces which can get their full significance only if one sees them as part of the whole pattern.
I want to mention some of the things which I think determine the pattern of world affairs today, the pattern into which one has to fit any particular subject or territory that one discusses. The first thing determining that general pattern—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—is the atmosphere of mutual fear between the two great Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, what we sometimes describe as the East-West problem.
But no sooner do we mention that than we realise that it is complicated also with the social struggle going on in the world, what is sometimes perhaps less accurately descried as the North-South problem, the cleavage in the world between the more prosperous and the less prosperous. Mention of this makes us realise that in the rivalry between East and West we are both aware of a considerable group of countries which have not committed themselves to either camp, but watch the movement of both with painful interest, and possibly make up their minds where their own allegiance may ultimately lie.
For us particularly the approach to that third world as it is sometimes called is of especial importance, because, owing to our colonial past, we have to handle a number of problems which arise between the advanced developed countries of the world and those which are newly emerging on to the world stage.
In addition to those three considerations, the East-West conflict, the North-South conflict, the special obligation on Britain because of her colonial past, I think that we must notice another feature setting the whole pattern of world affairs

at the present time, and that is the enormously rapid advance of mankind's technical skill, which has two effects. On the one hand, it makes it more imperative than ever before to remove barriers to trade because of the amount of human ingenuity and skill that is frustrated today if, for example, Europe continues to be divided—Western Europe even—into two distinct trading patterns. If trade the world over is obstructed, we are more aware today, knowing what we do of mankind's technical skill, how much mankind can be losing if trade is not
At the same time, the technological advances of the world in which we live make technical co-operation between countries far more important than it was before. Man's inventive skill is continually creating projects the proper unit for the operation of which is larger than most national States, and since the world is still not yet at a stage of political development to transcend the national State, it means that nations must, as we have been endeavouring with France and other nations of Europe, get co-operation, particularly in those technical fields where the unit required is so plainly greater than that of the national State.
Having mentioned that topic, I should like to take up at once some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman about E.L.D.O. I would advise him, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite generally, that if they are thinking of making any comments on this they should study very carefully the statement which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation made earlier this afternoon.
What comes out at the end of the day is that under the arrangement entered into by the last Government this country was to pay 38 per cent. of the cost. Under the arrangement now secured it has to pay 27 per cent. of the cost. Under the arrangement entered into by the last Government there was no limit to the total sum out of which this 38 per cent. might become payable. Originally, it was thought that the cost of the project would be £70 million. A later estimate was £120 million, and still later is £158 million. We are now starting with a new form of E.L.D.O., with the addition of what is known as the perigee-apogee system, and a new programme in which


there will be a ceiling figure of £118 million—and we are not entering into any commitment beyond that total figure.
It cannot be disputed that this is an infinitely better bargain for Britain than that entered into by the last Government. More important than that, the right hon. Gentleman read me a little lecture on the sanctity of contracts and quoted E.L.D.O. in this connection. If he is to speak of E.L.D.O. he should dress himself in the penitent's sheet rather than the lecturer's gown, because the trouble there was that not only was the arrangement made by the last Government a bad bargain for this country, but that the slovenliness of entering into agreements is one of the things that can undermine confidence. It is very easy to make agreements if one does not look ahead and count the cost, and faces a subsequent Government with the difficult choice between an arrangement far beyond what prudence would ever have committed this country to and the natural unwillingness of any Government to go back on an agreement.
On this occasion we were able, by negotiating with our allies, to get out of our dilemma and both to stand by our word and obtain a better bargain for this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to lay so much stress on the sanctity of contracts he must remember that what has to go with it is prudence in entering into agreements. I shall have something to say on this theme again when I turn to the other matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, to events in the Middle East.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend say, in connection with prudence, whether the new arrangements include the establishment of an inspectorate to examine exactly to what use the funds supplied by the member countries of E.L.D.O. are put? Otherwise, even a reduction in percentage in the total involvement will not result in a reduction in actual expenditure.

Mr. Stewart: There is to be a review, and there are arrangements for this. On that matter, my hon. Friend could better address himself to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation—but the new

arrangements will provide for closer scrutiny than we have had in the past.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is not the right hon. Gentleman to some extent claiming credit where credit is not due? Is it not a fact that in April the other members of E.L.D.O. were agreeable to adding the perigee-apogee system, and to taking a larger share in the finance, and that in the knowledge that they were willing to do this the British Government still threatened to pull out?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has the sequence of events wrong. Nothing definite was said to us about the possibility of better financial arrangements until later than he suggests. I would draw his attention to the fact that in the end we must judge these matters by events. There is no getting away from the fact that we inherited a thoroughly bad agreement, and that we have now succeeded in making a better one.
My point—and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this—is that since it is far beyond the importance of E.L.D.O. that we should maintain confidence that when we have entered into agreements we will keep them, when we are entering into agreements we should look ahead, exercise foresight and consider what is within the resources of this country.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that it is a very good tactic in negotiations to threaten to break an agreement. I understand that on 19th June the Foreign Secretary stated categorically that it was not in our best interests that we should remain a member of the organisation. Does he regard a threat of this kind as a good form of negotiation tactic?

Mr. Stewart: I will make a nice present to the right hon. Gentleman. What I should have referred to was "this programme in the organisation". It was quite clear from other things that I said at the same time that that was what I meant, but I certainly made a slip, from which the right hon. Gentleman is welcome to make what he can.
The position of the British Government was well understood by our allies—that we did not feel that the then financial arrangements created a proper basis for our continued participation. In the event


we were able to negotiate a very much better agreement. One of the main theses of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that we must have regard to our resources and to their proper deployment. One of the charges to be made against the previous Administration is that they never properly understood that, and were inclined to give the impression that this country could enter into commitments—scientific or military—without having first counted the cost. That is an error that we shall seek to avoid.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman is not really helpful when he tries deliberately to blow up any anxieties that our friends and allies may have. Let us take, for example, his reference to the surcharge. What was the situation in the autumn of 1964? We were running a very heavy balance of payments deficit. Anybody who could do sums would have realised that this country would have to import less; that whatever device was used for that purpose that would have to be the result. I do not dispute the shock given to our friends—particularly in E.F.T.A.—by the import surcharge, but they understood the situation with which we were faced.
We explained and justified this at successive E.F.T.A. conferences, and the decision finally reached has given very widespread satisfaction. The party opposite has never suggested any alternative, and I do not believe that any alternative that could be suggested would not have caused greater difficulty with foreign countries, given the balance of payments with which we were faced. The right hon. Gentleman does not help matters by endeavouring to exaggerate, beyond what the facts justify, the anxieties of our friends, caused by the action we took in face of the difficulties which we have undoubtedly had to go through.
I want now to pursue the main theme to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the effect on the world situation of the balance of fear and suspicion between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was because of the emergence of those suspicions that the N.A.T.O. Alliance was created. I do not want to go into great detail about negotiations within N.A.T.O.; I spoke to the House at some length about those in the debate a few months ago. The essence of the matter is that all 15 members of N.A.T.O.

believe in the necessity for the alliance, and 14 of them believe that to make the alliance efficient and credible it is necessary to have an integrated military defence.
The 15th, France, believes that the result can be achieved not by integration, but by some measure of co-operation in military planning. The way the French see it is that the 14 will have their defence integrated if they wish it to be, and the 15th, France, co-operating with that integrated defence of the 14. The critical question is: can that co-operation be made to work?
This involves finding the answers to certain political questions between us and the French, and that is what is now being argued out in the N.A.T.O. Council. Once those political questions are dealt with, I believe that the military details will then fall into place. But we and the rest of the 14 take the view that if N.A.T.O. is to be efficient there must be the integrated military plan on which N.A.T.O. has hitherto rested. I hope that we have been able—I am sure that we have—to make this view clear to the French without either giving unnecessary offence or blurring the essential difference in point of view.
I think that one of the valuable things which came out of the recent visit of the French Prime Minister to this country was that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and M. Pompidou were able to establish that the various suggestions which there had been in some quarters that we, because of the argument in N.A.T.O., were pursuing some kind of vendetta against the French, had no foundation. At the same time, we made it clear what our differences of view were and the importance in the N.A.T.O. Council of getting the answers to the political questions concerning the degree of co-operation which we may expect between France and the 14 Powers in N.A.T.O.
I would follow the right hon. Gentleman, also, in saying that it is right that we should not consider N.A.T.O. only as a defensive alliance. He said that we must look for new purposes for it. However, it has, of course, always been one of the purposes of N.A.T.O. not merely to be a defensive alliance, but to try to seek, in the longer term, for better understanding between East and West


Europe. Indeed, it is important, when we say that we will have a debate in the House on Europe, that we do not interpret that phrase to mean Western Europe alone. Therefore, before coming on to the questions of relations between us, the Common Market and our E.F.T.A. partners, I want to consider the question of relations between East and West Europe as a whole.
Here, there are clearly certain wide differences of view, in particular not merely as to how what we would call "the German problem" should be dealt with, but as to the nature of that problem. There are the tensions created by the weapons in the various parts of Europe. I do not believe that one can remove the tensions in East-West relations by starting with the largest and most intractable problems. We must be prepared to start on a limited scale, simply to get the various nations of East and West Europe accustomed to normal relations with one another—normal in trade, in the movement of their citizens, in the exchange of knowledge in science and other matters.
It is interesting to find that this view, which we have put forward on a number of occasions, is increasingly the view of both sides of Europe. If one studies the declaration issued after the visit of President de Gaulle to Moscow, one sees stress there on the importance of bilateral relations and normal cultural and economic relations between East and West Europe. A similar strain of thought is apparent in the Note circulated to a number of European Governments by the German Government a few months ago.
One of the pronouncements coming from the conference in Bucharest brings out the same point. Although, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, on some of the major questions there are views expressed in the communiqués from Bucharest which we could not accept, there is also the emphasis on the need for improved ordinary relations between the countries of East and West.
If I now refer to what may appear to the House to be at first rather small matters, I do so because I am sure that this is the way in which the whole process of unravelling the East-West question must be done. I have paid a num-

ber of visits to East European countries. For example, we have now arranged with Yugoslavia—I am speaking of the events of the last 12 or 18 months—a consular convention, a cultural convention and the abolition of visa fees.
We are in the process of negotiating a consular convention with Poland and we shall shortly be starting negotiations for that purpose with Bulgaria. With Czechoslovakia we are negotiating a medical services agreement, which is something which tourists and would-be tourists particularly value. We hope to be able to make progress in that field with Bulgaria and Hungary as well.
Meanwhile, there have been increasing trade contacts. There is, of course, the exhibition in Moscow at present and we have played a considerable part in the Posnan Fair. I think that it is fair to say that the computer exhibition in Prague was almost dominated by British exhibits. An exhibition by the Council of Industrial Design is shortly to be shown in Budapest. We can, therefore, say that, despite the many anxieties which still crowd the scene, there is evidently a wish not only of Governments but of individual citizens on both sides of what we used to call the Iron Curtain for more normal and human relationships with each other.
We have sought to carry this a little further by means of the proposal which I put to the N.A.T.O. meeting in Brussels, that we should endeavour to draft a statement of principles to govern the contact with one another of the nations of Europe, that this should be partly a statement of political principles and partly concerned with the encouragement of commercial, cultural and scientific contacts.
We are discussing a draft of this proposed statement in the first instance with our N.A.T.O. allies and we shall then want to take it up with the countries of Eastern Europe, some of whom have already expressed their interest in this kind of approach to the European problem. I do not see this as something to be formally negotiated between N.A.T.O. as one group and the Warsaw Pact as another group. I see it as something which, if we can be certain of some degree of agreement on both sides, can then be a statement to which any nation individually, whichever group it belongs to—or if it belongs to neither—can


subscribe. This is something on the lines of the new attempt to relieve the strain between East and West to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I notice also that, in the communiqués from Bucharest, there is mention of a declaration, presumably something of this kind. But I must notice here one difference of view. The Powers gathered at Bucharest seem to picture a statement of principles of this kind emerging after the conclusion of a conference on European security. I am inclined to think that this is to pat the cart before the horse—that we want to get a statement of this kind to improve confidence as a step before we get to the real heart of the question, the really difficult problem, the holding of a conference on European security. But I believe that, although it will take time, it is towards such a conference that we should be working. It is a conference which will require preparation and to which the kind of more limited step of which I have been speaking so far is a necessary prelude.
I think that it is clear that in such a conference the question of German reunification has to be dealt with and solved. Another essential of such a conference is the participation of the United States. I should like to say something—again following a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman—about the relations between this country and the United States. He said that he found in Moscow a tendency to regard us as satellites of the United States.
I am not quite certain what moral he drew from that—not, I think from something he said later, the dangerous moral that therefore we should regard differences with the United States and we have such differences—as positive merits in themselves. I should like to make it clear that we have had and still have certain differences of policy with the United States over the position of China in the United Nations. There are certain differences of emphasis in the view we took on the Dominican Republic and, more recently, on its action in Hanoi and Haiphong.
I believe that is right for this country, when it has these differences, not simply to drop them because we never want to differ from the United States at all. But I say very emphatically that we must

never get into the frame of mind where we are lured by a false interpretation of the word "independence" into imagining that differences with our allies are a positive merit, because in the kind of world in which we live there is a very great deal which neither we nor any other country can do effectively save in consultation with allies and, indeed, in discussion with those who are not allies.
There is always the danger, I believe, in discussion of international affairs, of becoming the prisoner of phrases and slogans. "An independent policy" is one of them. If by that is meant that we as a nation, as a Government, give our best thoughts to what we believe to be in the interests of our country and of mankind and endeavour to make that our contribution to the common policy of our allies and, indeed, of the other forums in which we meet other nations, all well and good. But if it should come to mean that there is a positive merit in asserting a different point of view from our allies simply because it is different that approach to international affairs—I do not know whether it ever made sense—certainly does not make sense in such an age of interdependence as the twentieth century.
I think that we should notice this particularly about our relations with the United States. Most of us are of an age to remember when the common reproach thrown up by people in this country at the United States was that she would not interest herself in European affairs until it was nearly too late. One of the major changes in world politics since the Second World War has been the permanent abandonment of any idea of isolationism by the United States. That is a major change and, in my judgment, a very welcome change indeed.
It would be a tragedy to mankind if Europe, after having reproached America for not being sufficiently interested in the outside world in the past, were now to reproach her for taking a positive interest in things outside the American Continent. We have to remember, also, that the economies of Europe, now prosperous, were helped up in the very difficult days after the war by the Marshall Plan and that to this day it is American food aid that stands, to mention only one example, between the people of India and starvation.
These things are not only well known and understood here, but I think that they are well known and understood in Moscow, too. Bitter as are their criticisms of some acts of American policy, I think that they know very well that the maintenance of the peace of the world is going to depend on their getting some modus vivendi with the United States. They do not expect us to throw over our allies.
But I would accept what I think was the right hon. Gentleman's final conclusion on this point—that what we should do is to set forth when we argue, as I frequently have to argue, with the Russians and with the other countries of Eastern Europe, what are our beliefs, not saying by any means, "We take this view because it is the American view", and still less saying, "We take this view because it is not the American view", but saying, "We take this view because we believe it to be right".
This has been my endeavour in most of the capitals on the other side of the Iron Curtain which I have visited. It has sometimes occurred to me when I have gone over what is to hon. Members here familiar ground, "Is it necessary to do this again?" Sometimes in an Iron Curtain country, when speaking to their journalists, it is necessary; it may be the first time that they have heard the British point of view argued. But this seems to me—this continued, steady statement of what we believe to be right—to be an important part, more imporant than it might sound at first, of the way in which we conduct our diplomacy today.
I have spoken of East-West relations and a conference on European security. In the context of East-West relations, I should refer to the undoubtedly difficult subject of disarmament. My noble Friend Lord Chalfont has been representing us through the difficult weeks of argument in the Geneva Conference. The argument there has been largely concerned with two topics—the possibility of getting a treaty to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility of getting a treaty to extend the partial test ban treaty to cover underground tests.
I must say quite frankly that we have not yet reached success in either of those. But it is noticeable that the drafts being put forward show a less wide gap on the first subject than they did and that

on the question of the banning of underground tests we are now being helped by suggestions, like that coming from Sweden a little while ago, on ways round what at first appears to be an irreconcilable difference—whether we could have a test ban treaty of this kind without any kind of verification.
I do not believe, therefore, that the fact that progress has been slow is any reason why we should suppose that it is unimportant to continue this argument. Adding the limited signs of progress that appear here to the general movement both in East and West Europe of a desire to agree, I believe that what my noble Friend is doing in Geneva is immensely worth while, and I trust that he will go on until he is rewarded with success.
A larger concept of disarmament is the possibility of schemes of the kind associated with the name of Mr. Gomulka for some form of regional arms control. There has recently been in Mexico City a conference on the possibility of regional arms control in Latin America at which we were represented and at which some lessons were learned which might be applicable in Europe, although in Europe we have to recognise that any plans for regional arms control have to be worked out against the background of the general degree of suspicion between the two great camps.
That is why one must apply to any schemes for regional control broadly the criteria that one attaches to other measures for disarmament; first, that they should be such as not plainly to overthrow the present balance between Europe, because if they were to do that they would clearly be unacceptable to one side or the other; secondly, they must go together with some degree of progress in solving the political questions of Europe; thirdly, any agreements about reduction of forces, either of numbers or of kind, in Europe must have some method of verification.
That is why we are proposing that there should be, on both sides of the dividing line, observation posts which would be some guarantee to both sides against the danger of surprise attack by the other. My noble Friend will shortly be in Warsaw, where he will be discussing this and related proposals with the Polish Government.
The general picture, therefore, of East-West relations is one in which there is undoubtedly still strain, mutual fear and suspicion, but also one in which, among both Governments and peoples, there is a greater readiness to believe that this gulf could be bridged. This is slowly showing itself at present in the normalising of relations and, I trust, in time will show itself in the great problems of disarmament and the political settlement of Europe. I assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will certainly be both diligent in themselves seeking new ways through difficulties and welcoming any helpful suggestions from other quarters.
We cannot, of course—and it would be useless ''or us to do so—simply lay down for the nations of Europe a full blueprint of exactly how we think that it should he done, because, clearly, it cannot be done without the consent of the major Powers and when we put forward proposals we must feel sure that we are doing so with the confidence of our allies, otherwise we produce no tangible result.
Having spoken of relations between East and West Europe, I want to take up the question of relations within Western Europe itself. The right hon. Member for Barnet raised the question of our relations with the Common Market. At the risk of vexing him, I must repeat the statement that it is the policy of the Government to enter the Common Market if this can be done with safeguards of our essential interests.
I go on from there to say that the right hon. Gentleman must realise that that is the essential starting-point. There are some—I remember one or two who were very vocal—on the benches opposite who, when they occupied this side of the House, used to take the view that we would not go into the Common Market at any price whatever. I have heard that view most eloquently argued from Conservative benches. I want to make it quite clear that the Government do not take that view. That is the significance of the phrase with which I opened the argument.
We know, of course, what some of those essential interests are. We must have regard to certain obligations to fellow members of the Commonwealth and to our E.F.T.A. partners. It is of those that I have repeatedly said that

I believe it to be easier now to meet those conditions than it was two or three years ago. I presume that no one will say that we should try to get into the Common Market without any regard for our fellows in the Commonwealth and our partners in E.F.T.A. To that extent, therefore, I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me in saying that these essential interests must be safeguarded. In any discussions which we have on the Common Market, we shall keep our Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. partners fully informed.
Then there are problems about agricultural prices and the cost of living. Here, we really have to ask ourselves, as have our friends across the Channel, whether there is a kind of arrangement which meets our anxieties in view of our balance of payments position and our position as a great food importer and which does not demand of the Six that they should unravel much of what they have done since they first created the organisation. That, clearly, we cannot ask them. We can, and do, ask that there must be some process of adjustment, particularly since it is a question not only of our entry, but of the entry, probably, of other E.F.T.A. countries as well. We could not ask the Six simply to unravel everything they had done in the formation of their policies and start again. The question is: is there an arrangement which would meet our needs without putting that unreasonable demand upon them?
One of the things that emerged from the recent visit of M. Pompidou is that we now know what we have to try to find; and we shall be embarking in discussions with all the members of the Six to see what answer can be found to this problem. It is interesting to notice that the same approach comes from the other side when the West German Foreign Minister says that half-hearted invitations are no good and that they must get down to practical study of the problems that would arise from the accession of Britain.
That, therefore, is the point which this question has reached. If this seems to some to be too slow, I remind the House that right hon. Members opposite and on the Liberal benches have urged the unwisdom of trying to rush this. I am sure that I do not need to urge upon the


right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues the unwisdom of trying to rush it.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does that mean that the Government accept the principles of the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C.? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying? That is how it sounded to me.

Mr. Stewart: No, I am not saying it quite as definitely as that. It is more complicated than that. If the hon. Member followed the argument which took place in Western European Union a little while ago about this matter, and the statement of one of the members of the Commission, he would see that it cannot be answered quite as simply as that. I cannot carry it further now, because this is exactly the kind of question to which, by mutual study, we and the Six must find the answer.
I want to say one other thing about the Common Market to emphasise what I said at Question Time. I believe that if this country, by its own efforts, solves its own economic difficulties and gets its economy into a healthy position, and can then, consistently with what I have been saying so far, go into the Common Market, the act of entry would be of great economic benefit to us. That is one proposition. One must very much distinguish that from the proposition sometimes advanced that going into the Common Market is a way of curing our economic troubles. That we must at all costs avoid. It is not true, and if we give the impression of believing it it will not be the right impression to give to those whom we are seeking to join.
It is important, therefore, if we are to make progress here, that this country should make progress with its own economic problem and, in particular, with its balance of payments. That question of our economy and payments is something of a link between the two main topics of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—Europe and the Middle East. A good deal of his comments about the Middle East appeared to be criticism of the Government for leaving Aden, and for not entering into the kind of defence agreement into which he apparently thinks that we should enter with the South Arabian Federation.
Hon. Members opposite must ask themselves this question: are they saying to the Government, "You ought to stay in Aden. You ought to accept a commitment to the South Arabian Federation so definite that if you did accept it you would need to have a base in Aden again"? Are they prepared to accept the economic consequences of that position? The right hon. Gentleman at one point argued that it is no good our saying about our overseas commitments, "Can we afford it?" He said, "We have to decide that we must afford it." That is a very dangerous road to take.
That view was advanced once before, by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), when, in criticising the general approach of the Defence Review, he said, "You must first decide what overseas commitments you must meet, and then find, somehow, how to pay for them."

Lord Balniel: Surely the question put to the Government benches was not, "Should we enter a commitment on defence with the Federation on its reaching independence?" but, "Is there not already a commitment?"

Mr. Stewart: I shall come to that point, but I would ask the noble Lord to remember what I said earlier about the unwisdom of the late Conservative Government trying to enter commitments without considering what was involved in resources.
But perhaps I might deal now with the question: what line of policy exactly is it that the Opposition are urging on us? Are they saying definitely that we should have so definite a commitment with the Federation of South Arabia that if it were to be more than a commitment on paper we would need to have the Aden base as well? If so, have they weighed the cost of this kind of policy?
I was saying that it is not a possible approach to this matter to say, "We will decide that we must meet certain commitments and then make up our minds that we must afford it." We must first of all consider, at one and the same time, what the resources of this country are and what are the commitments it might meet, and then strike a proper balance between them. That was what the Defence Review was about. If it is felt that the balance struck in the Defence


Review was wrong, we should have it a little more clearly from the other side what it is that it wants.
At present, 7 per cent. of our gross national product goes on defence. Is it, therefore, the contention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we must keep that expenditure at that very high figure? I do not believe that that can be right—

Viscount Lambton: The right hon. Gentleman would do a service to the House if he would follow up the point made by my right hon. Friend and say what precise commitment we have to Aden at the present time. Is it, for instance, possible for the Aden Government not to agree to the ending of the defence treaty? Article IX of Cmnd. 665 says that for such a treaty to end it must be by mutual agreement. Is this the case?

Mr. Stewart: The answer to that question is that in 1968 South Arabia will be independent. If, therefore, there was to be any commitment then it would have to be a fresh commitment. That, as we have made clear—and we have had the Federal Ministers here recently—is what we do not think it right or prudent to do. What we are prepared to do is to give them, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, financial assistance for the strengthening of their forces. He tended rather to ridicule this step, but I would suggest the following to him.
I believe that it is true for the Middle East as it is true—though, of course, in very different circumstances—in South-East Asia, that it is essential that a number of countries should take the necessary measures for their own modernisation and for their own defence. They are the more likely to do that if there is a considerable other presence, perhaps in the background, but I do not believe that we ought to attempt to run the affairs of the Arabian Peninsula any more than that we should attempt to run the affairs of certain South-East Asian countries.
In both parts of the world, the general pattern has to be the emergency of territories, that have previously had colonial or some other form of tutelage, towards independence. This what is happening in South Arabia. It is happening—though, again, in different circumstances—in the Persian Gulf. We have among those small States

progress in their economic co-operation with one another, with some of them taking over the jurisdiction over foreigners that previously belonged to the British Government. This is the way these things will develop.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already taken up a good deal of time.
The trouble is that members of the party opposite will not recognise the real answer when they see it. They are trying to ask us to do or promise something which, as a matter of fact, they know it would be both impossible and imprudent to promise. The Government do not propose to do that—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The point is that there was an agreement made in 1959, which, we understand, can be ended only by the mutual consent of the two parties. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not that is so? Secondly, he says that we are supplying a certain amount of money for the defence of South Arabia, but he knows that it is not enough—at least as we found it—to cover air defence, which is the essential gap for, say, two to five years. Will he say something about that?

Mr. Stewart: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is that this was not, in our view, a commitment; that, with the emergence of the independence for South Arabia, we are not under an obligation to enter a defence agreement with South Arabia. That is the position as I understand it.
I say again that right hon. Gentlemen opposite must ask themselves what policy it is they are urging on this country. I believe that so far they have put it only in the negative form of objecting to certain things the Government are doing. The trouble is that when they have to face the question of what we ought to do they are not prepared to face the military and economic implications of the answer.
I believe that, over the whole of the Middle East, British interests cannot permanently be served by our trying to maintain political domination. Our interest simply is that that part of the world should be at peace. In the Persian


Gulf that still means the special relationship existing between Britain and those States. In South Arabia, it means a change of relationship and the emergence of an independent country.
But we must notice the kind of defence burden which this country is bearing, greater, I believe, in proportion to its population than almost any other country in the world. It can be argued by some—and it seems to be the argument of the Opposition—that we should be carrying a greater burden. It has been argued by others that we should throw away responsibilities faster than we have done. I do not believe that the case for either of those courses is made out.
I have delayed the House for some time, but before concluding I must say a few words about Gibraltar. First, may I say why we are engaging in conversations with the Spanish Government. This follows the resolution of the United Nations. We believe that we have a good case. We therefore felt it right, since we had been asked to enter into talks, to make it clear to the United Nations that we had nothing of which we need be ashamed. The object of the talks is to reach a normal relationship between Spain and the people of Gibraltar.
As I have made it very clear in the earlier sessions of the talks, we have no doubt as to our sovereignty. We reject the contention that we have been in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht. Although, of course, technically Britain is responsible for Gibraltar—and the Gibraltarian Government are not in that sense a party to the talks—we have no doubt, either, that they are a community whose wishes must be consulted.
The right hon. Member for Barnet exaggerated a little the disquiet in Gibraltar. I wonder whether he saw the television interview which the Prime Minister of Gibraltar gave the other night, in which he said that, although he very well understood and sympathised with the anxieties in Gibraltar, he did not feel the need to share them himself.
I have tried to cover the wide scene depicted by the right hon. Member for Barnet. The general pattern which I think emerges is that we have this world torn by the East-West dispute, struggling

with the problems created by old colonialisms, and this country in a position of exceptional difficulty and of exceptional opportunity; and that the way m which we shall endeavour to deal with that situation is by strengthening our economy at home so that we can bear our responsibilities, by a proper judgment measuring our responsibilities and our resources together, and by the resolute statement in whatever international forum may be appropriate of the things in which we believe: the rule of law in international affairs, the need for wider, more generous intercourse between nations, and the establishment of social justice.

5.34 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I have listened over the years to a large number of debates and speeches on foreign affairs, although I have only very rarely intervened in them. I have followed with close interest the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the Foreign Secretary and feel, as we all must, some temptation to seek, however inadequately, to follow them in the massive, varied and important matters on which they have addressed the House.
In particular, I should have liked to have added a word or two about the contractual and perhaps logistical implications of what the Foreign Secretary said about South Arabia. But it is a common experience, and commonly accepted by the House, that Members who speak from the back benches in foreign affairs debates of this general nature are obliged to accept something of a self-denying ordinance and to confine themselves to a single subject. The subject on which I should like to detain the House for a short time is our present relations with Western Europe in the particular context of the European Economic Community.
We had considerable debate on this matter some years ago. The Foreign Secretary today said in his references to it that it had been eloquently argued by some Members on the Conservative benches that in no circumstances would it be appropriate to join the Common Market. I appreciate that his reference to the eloquence of the argument precluded reference to myself. But so far as I remember those arguments—and I


think that I remember them fairly clearly, as they were put forward by some hon. Members—it was not said that in no circumstances and in no conditions would it be appropriate to join the Community.
What was said, certainly by myself and by hon. Friends of mine, was that it would not be appropriate to join without conditions safeguarding, to use the Foreign Secretary's expression, the interests of this country, particularly in the matters of sovereignty, of the Commonwealth, and of agriculture. We voiced a view that it did not seem that those conditions would be met under the Treaty of Rome in an unamended and unrevised form having regard to the rigidity and permanence of its contents. Those are difficulties which are still with us.
There is, however, this difference between discussing this subject now and discussing it in 1961–62. At that time we were discussing it in a climate of urgency, because there was an application to adhere to the treaty and join the Community, and negotiations were being actively pursued. Today, there is not that climate of urgency because there is no application and, therefore, no formal negotiation on foot. That makes the occasion one for a contribution rather of comment and clarification than of the sort of controversy in which we were engaged in those days.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet and the Foreign Secretary referred to conditions. At present, conditions are a two-way traffic. Britain is seeking to secure conditions, and the Community is seeking to impose conditions if we should wish to join. If I understand correctly the implications of M. Pompidou's statement and other references, the Community is seeking to impose an express condition as to Britain's economic position and no doubt, also, an implied condition as to the degree to which Britain would regard herself as exclusively, or at any rate predominantly, concerned with European matters if she is admitted to membership of the Common Market.
In negotiation, where each party seeks to impose conditions, the balance of negotiating advantage tends to lie with the grantor rather than with the asker. That is not a tactical disadvantage which would be removed by making this coun-

try's request unconditional, because an unconditional request is normally reputed to give rise to a weak position in any negotiation between parties.
I would say, though this is not a view held by all who sit on this side of the House, that the present position therefore discounts hasty action. It is right for the Government to have in mind that what they do in this context has a degree of irrevocability rather more than the ordinary in human affairs; and that if a bargain is entered into and if it should turn out on the conditions in which it is entered into to be a bad bargain, though it may be regretted, it cannot be revoked owing to the provisions of the Treaty.
The nature of the condition sought to be imposed by the Community strengthens the argument against precipitancy—that is, the condition in regard to economic matters. If that point is taken by the Community, it must follow that the greater the urgency of Britain's addresses the greater is likely to be the toughness in negotiation of the Community in regard to conditions which this country wants, because the Community will, in present conditions, be likely to interpret urgency on our side as confirmation of the economic weakness that they suspect and of a desire by Britain to escape from it into the shelter of the Community.
It may be said by right hon. Members opposite that the charge is not well founded; but from the point of view of the psychological effect on negotiation, from the point of view of the way in which it tilts the tactical advantage in negotiation, it is almost immaterial whether the charge is well founded or not. The fact that it is entertained, and presumably believed in, itself shifts the tactical advantage in negotiation that way.
These things being so, I take the view that the present is a period for exploration and examination rather than for application and formal negotiation by this country. It can be said that time does not stand still. Of course it does not. But time is not marching forward quite as rapidly and quite as inexorably in the circumstances of the Community as might have been supposed from the language


of the Treaty itself, because of the differences and the accommodations that have had to be reached within the Six.
In that context, I suggest three courses of action for the Government in this phase. The first is one that I would counsel upon them in any event. It is to take all action that they can to remove the economic weakness which is charged against them. The ways of doing that would take us well beyond the scope of this debate, so I will leave that aspect merely with the plea to right hon. Members opposite not to forget the contribution that can be made in that context by the strengthening of our Commonwealth trade.
My second suggestion is that the Government should now make a closer examination and a clearer explanation of the constitutional and political effects of adhering to the Treaty of Rome. Hon. Members will remember that in 1961, when this argument started, it was first put on the basis that this was almost an exclusively economic consideration. In due course, however, the emphasis was laid upon the undoubted political and constitutional importance of the matter—the so-called sovereignty aspect.
The importance of that aspect is now generally accepted. Indeed, as hon. Members know, there is a very active discussion going on amongst the Six themselves on the sovereignty implications of the treaty. There is not, I think, any, or any sufficient, clear awareness of the effect that adherence to the treaty would bring by way of changes in our law and limitation on the action of Parliament. I have noticed an increasing interest in this at Question Time, which is all to the good, though I think I could not altogether conscientiously say that I get the impression from the exchanges that the provisions of the treaty are always wholly or perfectly understood by those who take part in those exchanges.
What we know is that the effect will be very great. As Lord Denning put it in his introduction to a book on Common Market Law:
Our constitutional law must be re-written so as to show that the sovereignty of these islands is not ours alone but shared with others. Large parts of our statute and our common law must over the years be adjusted.

It does not extend to matters of foreign policy and defence. If they are to be dealt with, another treaty will be required. However, it does extend over a very wide range of our social and economic life, and in that range it brings a degree of compulsory change in our law and subordination of the sovereignty of Parliament.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there is already a great deal of subordination of our laws to international law in the form of the G.A.T.T. and other bodies. We cannot really alter what we have done by international agreement. This is a growing process and is bound to grow in the progress towards world government.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is true that many economic actions that we take are subject to the restrictions and limitations of the G.A.T.T. There are three differences. First, the G.A.T.T. is not an irrevocable commitment for all time such as is the Treaty of Rome under Article 240; it is one terminable on due notice. Secondly, the G.A.T.T. is also able to be amended. Thirdly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it does not cover nearly so wide and area of our social and economic life as is comprised in the Treaty of Rome.
After all, the matters covered in the Treaty of Rome are very wide indeed—the common external external tariff, which is an abandonment of sovereignty in the context of Commonwealth preferences; free movement of workers, with all its implications for trade unions; right of establishment for companies; abolition of restrictions on service, with its implications for professional men; abolition of restrictions on the movement of capital, with its implications for exchange control; common transport policy; common policy in regard to monopolies and restrictive practices; harmonisation of social services, and so on. It covers a very wide field.
There is at present insufficient knowledge, not only in the country as a whole, but probably in the House of Commons itself, to answer the vital questions: first, what would be the extent and effect of the changes brought about


by adherence to the treaty; and, secondly, whether they would constitute an improvement on our present position and procedures. In so far as they do constitute an improvement, they have to be weighed against the economic balance of the matter, whatever that may prove to be.

Dr. Hugh Gray: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that he does not know whether he is for or against negotiated entry at this moment in time?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: What I said—and I hoped clearly—was that there is no application at the present time and that I do not think, for the reasons that I have given, that this would be a very good time to initiate an application because the Community's insistence on our economic weakness, as it sees it, places us in a weak tactical position to get the sort of conditions and safeguards which I have always said in this House—as the hon. Member may know, though I do not think he was here when the debates actually took place—are necessary in the context of the national interest.
What I have suggested and would like to suggest again is that the Government issue a White Paper on these matters to show the changes required in our statute law, and indeed in our law generally, on adherence to the Treaty of Rome. The Prime Minister has said in answer to a Question of mine that he does not see the necessity for this at the moment, but will keep it in mind. He also said that the Government are studying what would be the implications for Parliamentary procedure and for questions of British law making and judicial machinery arising from the article—that is, in the treaty. He said that it requires close study and he referred to the work of the previous Government, adding that this is a very important question which needs working out before we get involved in any negotiations.
I think that it is clear that the Government should press ahead with that study and should then promulgate the results of it, so that discussion and evaluation of these vital questions can take place on a factual basis rather than one of loose or emotive generalisation. As the House will appreciate, there are articles within the treaty, notably Article 100 and

Article 189, which have a much more general application than the specific matters to which I have been referring, and that they have the effect of introducing a wide measure of subordination of our law-making machinery in this country to the regulations of the Commission or the Council.
In this context, we have to bear in mind that there is as yet no effective democratic or parliamentary control over the actions of the Commission. It follows that these rather substantial sub-ordinations of the sovereignty of Parliament and these compulsory changes in our law if we accept—did the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me?

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Would he agree that if this advice was followed with regard to the consideration of what necessary changes in our law would follow upon our adherence to the treaty, this would, in effect, amount to a putting off of our adherence indefinitely in view of the continuing changes of the law in the Community resulting from the day-to-day interpretations effected by the Commission and by the courts of the Community?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No. Of course, there is always an evolution of the interpretation of law by the decisions of the courts. That happens in any country. I am talking about the statute law of the Community, which the hon. Gentleman must appreciate, unless it is subject to amendment and revision, is something which in its present form would be directly applicable in this country and would shape the course of our national life over this wide range of subjects.
That brings me to my last point, which is this. On 19th May I asked the Prime Minister whether the Government were making representations to the Community as to the revisions which they would like to see in the treaty as a basis of the adherence of this country; and he said that he did not think that that was profitable at this stage. I am rather inclined to accept, for the reasons I have given, that this does not seem to he a fruitful time for negotiations; but, again, I think that it is something to which the Government should be giving their own attention so that they may formulate the


revisions or amendments which they think would meet these basic conditions for this country.
It may be suggested that this is time-wasting, that it is spitting against the wind, because the Community will not undertake any revision or amendment of the Treaty of Rome. I think that that is too pessimistic a view. Of course, it is said at the present time that no revision is possible; but that is a commonplace in any negotiation, whether one intends to make any concession or not. Parties to negotiations normally start by taking that view. But in the longer term I feel that it would be neither hopeless nor inappropriate for the Government to make these representations as to desirable revision.
There are a number of factors which, I think, favour this possibility. First of all, as the House knows, Article 236 of the treaty specifically contemplates the possibility of revision and amendment, and prescribes the machinery for it. Secondly, revision will presumably be necessary in the near future in any event, in order to merge Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community within the European Economic Community.
Thirdly, there are signs that the Six are not entirely satisfied themselves with all the provisions of the treaty. For example, the provision for majority voting is virtually in cold storage, and the Six have still got to work out some satisfactory method of applying some effective system of Parliamentary or democratic control over the actions of the civil servants—that is to say, the Commission. Fourthly, it would be contrary to all human experience and probability that a treaty evolved 10 or more years ago, to meet circumstances as then untried, is really quite incapable of improvement by way of revision, in the light of the experience of the workings of the Community.
Therefore, the Government should address their minds to this. It is the more important because although adherence to the Community does not expressly carry any obligation to proceed a step further to a close form of political union or association, it is commonly, and, I think, not unreasonably, accepted that this is an implied obligation of adherence to the Community.
Here again, we have this very interesting discussion within the Community as to the form which that further step will take, as to whether it will be a close political federation, as some would wish, or whether it would be as suggested in the language of General de Gaulle at his Press conference of 9th September last:
France counters this project which is contrary to all reality with the plan of an organised co-operation possibly evolving towards a confederation.
An additional advantage of putting forward the case for revision and amendment of the treaty to meet these basic requirements of this country is that the reception of it will also indicate to the Government the balance of future thinking within the Community, whether it is to proceed more in the direction of a close political federation or towards a rather looser form of corporate or confederate organisation, as suggested in the words which I have just quoted.
That, again, must, or may, make a substantial difference to the attitude of this country. If it is to be a close political federation, while it is an unwise politician, as has well been said, who ever uses the word "never", certainly it is not likely that this country will feel ripe for participation in that at any rate within the lifetime of some hon. Members.
For all those reasons I think that the Government would be well advised to address their mind anew to these matters and ascertain what proposals for revision they can put forward. I would not be too niggardly in allowing them time to take those actions having regard to the importance of the matter in issue and the fact that a right decision taken with the right conditions at the right time could no doubt be a very valuable element in increased European co-operation for us in this country and for Europe as a whole, but a decision wrongly or rashly taken at the wrong time, and with the wrong conditions, would impose unacceptable deprivations of sovereignty upon us and weaken our position in the world as a whole.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: I would ask for the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech. I have the honour to represent the constituents of Bedford. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will well remember my predecessor,


Christopher Soames, who represented Bedford for 16 years. He achieved high office in successive Governments, and is a man of considerable versatility and sincerely-held views. Therefore, I gladly follow the traditions of the House in paying my tribute to him, although we hold diametrically opposed views on many subjects, in particular, on the subject of the European Common Market.
Bedford is not easy to classify on a regional basis. We who live there are always concerned that the plans for the Britain of the future shall not leave Bedford forgotten. Bedford is not in East Anglia, not in the Home Counties, and not really in the Midlands. It is in the part of England which might vulgarly be called the middle. I therefore give notice that I shall endeavour to ensure that all the legitimate claims and demands of Bedford are not forgotten by this House.
We also have that most beautiful of English rivers, the Great Ouse, going through Bedford and the constituency. We have the finest cricket bat willows in England growing in our county, if my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Robert Davies) will allow me to make that claim. The principal activities, rather than industries, of Bedford are education, including the Harpur Trust schools, the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford, and many other similar research organisations, and a number of science-based firms, including the manufacture of turbines, electrical switchgear, electric motors, transistors, and so on, and an increasingly large printing industry. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that professional services represent the highest employment group in the Bedford area, consisting of 16 per cent. of the entire employed population, a percentage which, I think, is similar to that in Oxford and Cambridge.
This year is a particularly important landmark in the history of Bedford, because exactly 800 years ago, in 1166, at Rouen King Henry II granted us our longest-existing Charter.
I now turn briefly to foreign affairs. I suggest that there is one single issue which is far more important than our relations with Europe, more important that the situation in Rhodesia, and more important than the dreadful struggle now going on in Vietnam. I refer to the

rapid emergence of China as a world Power and the urgent need to establish a world government and a world peacekeeping force at the earliest opportunity. In a very real way, this single issue dominates everything that we discuss today and everything that was discussed last Thursday in the debate on Vietnam.
China has many claims to uniqueness. It has a civilisation like ours, but even older, going back almost continuously to Neolithic times. It is a vast country with an even vaster population. In the arts and in commerce it has always shown great sophistication. Since 1910, it has had three revolutions, ending finally in the establishment in 1949 of the People's Republic of China. It proclaims itself to be a revolutionary Communist society, but those who have visited China since 1949—I was in China on two occasions last year—will know that the most distinctive aspect of China today is that it is Chinese. This, perhaps, was always so.
It is difficult for anyone but an expert—and I certainly do not claim to be an expert on Chinese affairs—to disentangle the threads of Chinese society to show what aspects are due to Communism and what aspects are due to the fact that they are just Chinese. What is apparent for all to see is the speed, enthusiasm, and single-minded dynamism of the people as they transform their nation from a mediaeval feudal economy to a modern sophisticated, industrialised super-State.
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) mentioned certain similarities between the United States and the Soviet Union. There are certain marked similarities between the United Kingdom and the Chinese, and in a way this has created a rather special relationship between the United Kingdom and China. In part, this has been due to our commercial history, the East India Company, William Jardine, and the development of trade from that time on to the present day. In part, it has been due to the presence and existence of Hong Kong, and, in part, it has been due to the fact that Chinese and Englishmen have a good many things in common, including common characteristics; and, I think that some of our virtues and some of our shortcomings we also have in common.
I was, therefore, particularly glad that one of the first official engagements in 1964 of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was to go to China to open the British Exhibition there. Our total annual trade with China, nearly £56 million last year, has recovered steadily since the set-back occasioned by the three years of bad harvest at the end of the 1950s. Imports last year, just under £30 million, reached their highest total since 1949 if the special sales of silver in 1961 are excluded. Similarly, last year our exports to China also reached their highest figure at £25·8 million if we exclude the special sales of copper in 1960.
China is beginning to supply tungsten again on the world market. She is supplying coal to Japan and rolling stock and freight cars to Ceylon. I just mention these few things to indicate the speed of development in China which has been going on during recent years. In 1965, Hong Kong imported over £145 million worth of goods and services from China but exported to China only about £4·5 million worth. The significance of Hong Kong both to China and to the United Kingdom will therefore be appreciated.
Peace and understanding follow trade, and I hope that British industry, helped where necessary by the Government, will still further increase our trade with China and in particular redress the imbalance in our present trade. In trying to indicate this rapid development in China, one should mention that at present diesel locomotives are being made in series production at Dairen Locomotive and Rolling Stock Plant—including engines of 2,000, 1,200 and 600 horsepower—and that China is producing sufficient medium-powered diesel engines for agriculture, including machines of 50 to 300 horsepower. Vehicles are being made in a number of centres and some of them are extremely sophisticated. They are also producing earth moving and construction equipment.
Just as the Japanese did some years ago, the Chinese are beginning to develop some extremely complex types of scientific equipment. This gives some indication of the speed of development and the way in which China is beginning to become a force to be reckoned with in one way

or another. In October 1964, China exploded her first atomic bomb. Since then there have been further nuclear weapon tests. This means that the five original permanent members of the Security Council—France, United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union and China—have now all blasted their way into that most diabolical of all clubs—the nuclear club.
If we are to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, now is the time to act. There is some kind of logic in the five permanent members of the Security Council entrusted with the peace-keeping of the world having the bomb and collectively seeing that no other country has it. It may seem a rather bizarre basis for unity of purpose between them but I believe that it exists and that it could lead to the development of a world peacekeeping force and to world government.

6.12 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I have the privilege of congratulating the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) on his maiden speech. He treated us to a neatly constructed and well delivered speech. He has brought to the debate first-hand knowledge of foreign affairs. He was luckier than I was, and a good many other hon. Members last year, in being able to get a visa to go to China. That unfortunately, was refused to some of us. He also brings to the House first-hand knowledge of industry, and I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we look forward to further contributions from him. I may add that it was very nice of him to pay such a generous tribute to our old friend Christopher Soames, who all of us hope to see back here before long.
My intention in quite a short speech is to show why I think that "doublethink" and "double-talk" have characterised British foreign policy since October 1964 and why, as a result, many of our friends have been left rubbing their eyes with amazement and some of our enemies rubbing their hands with glee. I want to indicate why I think the Government have pursued a zig-zag foreign policy and to draw attention to the way British interests have been jeopardised and to the effect on our standing abroad.
Since October, 1964, the Government have been trimming their sails and altering course to avoid a mutiny that would


affect all ranks on board. The speed, course and destination of the ship of State—British foreign policy—has been wholly unpredictable. The left wing of the Labour Party is bitterly angry that the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) has proved only partially right in his prediction in 1960 that if the present Prime Minister came to lead the party he would be
… the prisoner of the Left wing"—
he described them as the unilateralists—
to whom he has directed his main appeal.
The Left wing of the Labour Party was promised disengagement, and there has not been any. It was promised nuclear-free zones, and there have not been any. It was promised major progress with disarmament, and there has been none. It thought that it was electing a leader who believed in a third force, and it seems that, on the whole, the Prime Minister does not. It thought that the Government would get rid unilaterally of our deterrent, and the Government have not. It thought that the Nassau Agreement would be renegotiated, and it has not been. It was expecting very large unilateral cuts in defence, cuts far beyond the present standstill arrangements, and nothing of the sort has happened. Thus, the anger and resentment of the Left wing of the Labour Party is easy to understand.
It is just as easy for me to sympathise with the Foreign Secretary today as it was in 1948 or 1949 to sympathise with Mr. Ernest Bevin when he angrily complained that the Left wing of his party had stabbed him in the back. The tragedy is that the Left wing has succeeded in disrupting British foreign policy while still feeling very far from satisfied. All that has happened is that its appetite has been whetted. The Foreign Secretary has the worst of all worlds.
I want to illustrate my argument from three main areas of the world where I think that lack of principle in British foreign policy and lack of resolution have been its main characteristics. The first of these areas is Europe.
The insular attitude of a substantial section of the Labour Party towards Europe is well known, and I sometimes think that its horizon is bounded by the southern shores of the Scilly Isles. But that does not go for the other half of the

Labour Party, which takes a different attitude. The party is split on the great issue of whether or not to join the Common Market. One half is enthusiastic about joining and the other half is against joining on any conceivable terms. One hon. Member has actually adopted both attitudes, and I wonder whether he reflected the Prime Minister's position.
The five conditions laid down by Mr. Gaitskell were designed to unite the Labour Party, but they did not have that effect for very long. These principles, with the subsequent glosses put on them—some by the Prime Minister himself—are all either irrelevant or would preclude our joining Europe on any terms that could possibly be negotiated. I agree with the Foreign Secretary, who said that the Government will not try to rush into Europe. That is true. In a recent speech, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
Before we could apply to join, we should need an extended period of exploration.
The House is entitled to know after the rather woolly remarks of the Foreign Secretary about Europe today—extended from what and to what? We do not know nearly enough about this. There is so much double talk about it. I hope that when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replies he will tell us more about the Government's attitude to Europe.
I cannot blame the French Prime Minister for being highly sceptical about Britain's will to join the Common Market. Unfortunately, the political will of the Labour Party to do so does not exist. Until the Government affirm unequivocally that they accept the spirit and the letter of the Rome Treaty as a basis for negotiation, there will not be any negotiation. I greatly fear that while we have such an equivocal Socialist Government, continuing to pay lip service to joining Europe while imposing impossible conditions, and while the Government refuse to come to grips with the many weaknesses of Britain's economy, the Six are not likely to regard us as very acceptable partners, I think that that is true, but it is also very sad.
For the second illustration of the zigzag policy, I turn to the Middle East. A sound foreign policy has many roots and I think that we would all agree that


one of them is the keeping of one's word. I was in the Middle East some six weeks ago, just after the General Election, and I had the opportunity to hear the reactions of many distinguished leaders of opinion in the Middle East to the Government's decision to abandon our responsibilities in Aden in 1968. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred to this matter and put some direct questions to the Foreign Secretary which the right hon. Gentleman most carefully avoided answering. I could not help feeling that by his refusal to answer those questions he was clearly admitting that we did break a clear and positive promise to the South Arabian Federal Government. Indeed, I do not think that the facts are in dispute.
I have with me the Federation of South Arabia Conference Report White Paper of July, 1964, from which I would like to read paragraph 38 which should be clearly on the record. It says:
The delegates … requested that as soon as practicable the British Government should convene a conference for the purpose of fixing a date for independence not later than 1968, and of concluding a Defence Agreement under which Britain would retain her military base in Aden for the defence of the Federation and the fulfilment of her world-wide responsibilities.
I agree that that was an open-ended undertaking and that one would be perfectly entitled to say that it should not have been entered into. I would listen to that argument. But it is now known that at the time the conference report was being produced the leaders of the South Arabian Federal Government talked to the then Leader of the Opposition to find out whether he would underwrite the guarantee. Twice since the General Election of October, 1964, the pledge to carry out that promise to enter into a defence agreement with the South Arabian Federal Government has been renewed by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Colonial Secretary. Is that denied or admitted? So far as I know, it is clearly admitted.
I do not think that the sort of remark, made by the Secretary of State for Defence, when he said that all we were obliged to do was to call a conference and that the Government had tried to do so, was at all worthy. Our word was broken

unilaterally and suddenly in spite of the fact that the promise had been underwritten on all those occasions. That is why about 150 of us from this side of the House put a Motion on the Order Paper referring to the British Government dishonouring our word, and I feel that those words have now been clearly justified.
The whole Middle East is in a state of flux. One has only to glance at it to know that that is so. A great struggle for power is going on throughout the Arab world with the United Arab Republic, openly backed by the Soviet Union which has armed, equipped and trained the Egyptian services, pursuing President Nasser's grandiose dream of a Middle East empire.
One of the main aspects of Britain's Middle East policy as I understood it in the past has been to do our utmost to help to maintain political stability. This was something which the Foreign Secretary said again today. But the chances of stability have been seriously set back by this sudden decision to withdraw completely from Aden and not to enter into any kind of defence agreement with the South Arabian Federal Government. It has created widespread nervousness and uncertainty and not by any means only in Aden. It has created uncertainty in Turkey about whether we shall carry out our pledges when the balance in Cyprus is difficult to hold and when efforts are being made to get Greece and Turkey to come together. It has undoubtedly created uncertainty in Turkey about the difficult situation in Cyprus and it has also created uncertainty in Saudi Arabia, as I know for a fact and as my right hon. Friend told the House.
It has created great uncertainty in Bahrain, where I was five weeks ago, and where the authorities are wondering whether the Government will carry out their treaty obligations. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in the Middle East last summer, I think—it was a very hot time of the year—and went to the Trucial Oman States and met the rulers, and I understand that he went to Bahrain and other territories in the Gulf to which we have obligations. It is common knowledge there that he renewed and underwrote those obligations and said that we would honour our word.
But I must tell him that when I was there a month ago and met the rulers in some of the Trucial Oman States and the Ruler of Bahrain, they all asked me whether, if the British Government could break their word on Aden, as they have, they would break it to those rulers as well. That is why our breaking of this promise is so serious. There were equally serious repercussions in Teheran, and Iran's membership of C.E.N.T.O. is of great importance to us. It is no exaggeration to say that the whole basis of the confidence of C.E.N.T.O. has been put at risk by the decision to pull out of Aden and break our promise in this unilateral fashion.
I now turn, equally briefly, to the Far East. This is the third major area which I want to consider to illustrate my argument that British foreign policy has been conducted without principle over the last 18 months and has left many of our friends in doubt about the course which we are really trying to follow.
Thursday's debate on the Government's hasty and ill-considered dissociation from American policy in Vietnam simply because a decision was made to carry out pinpoint attacks on legitimate and vital military targets in the Hanoi and Haiphong areas clearly showed to my hon. Friends and to me the damage which can be done to Anglo-American relations and understanding and the prospect of peace and stability when considerations of Socialist Party unity take precedence over the national interest, which is what has clearly happened in this case.
So misleading has been the effect of the Government's double talk about their Far East policy, not only about Vietnam, but in the Defence White Paper, which spoke of the greatest danger to peace lying in the Far East and South Asia in the next decade—I quote from paragraph 24 on page 8 of the Defence White Paper—and the Prime Minister saying in the House that it was intended to have a massive reduction of troops in the Far East—and the words were "massive reduction", first used, I believe, in the party caucus upstairs and either leaked or given to the Press—that a great deal of anxiety was excited in Australia which the Foreign Secretary himself had to try to dispel. I quote The Times of 1st July when he said in Australia:

There may even be people in Australia who … believe if it came to the crunch we would let Australia down.
Fancy a British Foreign Secretary having to say that at all! No wonder things of this kind happen to people who are always playing both ends against the middle and when the whole of our foreign policy is characterised by double-think and double-talk.
I was not in the least surprised when I saw in The Times a few weeks ago an advertisement in what is sometimes called the "Agony Column" saying:
Speaker wanted to support Mr. Wilson's Vietnam policy in a public debate.
I very much hope that somebody was found.
In the Far East, just as in the Middle East, wider repercussions can flow from indecision and lack of principle in British foreign policy. For example, what is the effect on Thailand of the words used by the Prime Minister on 28th June in reply to a supplementary question, when he was asked:
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that troops leaving Malaysia will not be sent to Thailand?
The Prime Minister replied:
… there need be no question of their geing redeployed in that area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1584–5.]
"No question of it "? What about the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty, which obliges us to redeploy our troops in that area in certain circumstances? Should the Prime Minister ever have used those words? Do they not call in question our reliability as members of S.E.A.T.O.? They do to me.
Similar anxieties have arisen in Malaysia and Singapore and in Indonesia with the change in the Government, and no doubt in Japan as well. I feel profoundly that British foreign policy since October, 1964 has desperately lacked direction, and this is having most unfortunate consequences, with far wider repercussions than many people realise.
Let no one conclude from what I have said that I have in the very least a jingolistic attitude to Britain's overseas rôle, or that I have shut my mind to radical changes in the way in which we carry it out. Rather the opposite is the case. I am firmly of the opinion that the time has come for entirely fresh diplomatic initiatives, involving the reshaping


of the whole pattern of our alliances and the rethinking of our short-term and long-term obligations, taking advantage of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet described, in opening the debate, as new balances that are developing in the world.
To sum up: the people of this country are crying out for honest political leadership. They want a statesman at No. 10, Downing Street, not a stuntsman. They want an end of double-talk and double-think, which inevitably conceal the real facts from the public. They want a British foreign policy which is within our resources and matches our continuing worldwide responsibilities. They want Britain to keep her word. They know that to carry out our responsibilities is well within our resources with intelligent planning, however loudly we may plead poverty.
They deplore the zig-zag foreign policy of the past eighteen months or more, resulting from constant and unsuccessful attempts to appease the Left wing to which I have referred. They deplore the fact that another reason for the zigzag policy has been the cowardly failure of the Government to insist that we should cease living in a fool's paradise and begin living within our means. They feel in their bones that this cannot be the right moment to shirk our responsibilities in the Middle East and Far East.
They recognise that we have a vested interest in stability, and they see it imperilled by the Government's shortsighted attitude. They are deeply disturbed to see Britain's standing in the world at such a low point. They also feel in their bones that it must be wrong to cold-shoulder Europe, and thus to risk spoiling the more friendly atmosphere that we were beginning to observe on the other side of the Channel.
They understand that all the expense and all the agony of the last 21 years since the war ended, when we have been carrying out our worldwide responsibilities and facing up to our obligations, will have been wasted lives, wasted money and wasted effort if we are now to walk out and leave important jobs half done, which far too many hon. Members opposite would like to do.
I deeply deplore the fact that the party opposite has shown that it is not fit to conduct British foreign policy on sound and sane lines, and that it has failed the nation.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: Although this is the first time that I address the House, I make clear that I give no undertaking to remain totally non-controversial in what I say, and I am ready, therefore, to forgo the privileges and courtesies which are usually accorded maiden speakers.
The subject about which I shall speak may not at first sight seem of such immediate importance as the question of Britain's entry into the Common Market, or the current crisis in N.A.T.O. arid subjects of this kind, to which other speakers have referred in the debate. It is certainly not of the same overwhelming, tragic urgency as the war in Vietnam, which was debated here last Thursday. But it is a subject which, in the long run, is of as great or perhaps even greater importance both to this country and to the community of nations as a whole.
I refer to the discussions at present taking place in the United Nations Special Committee on Peace-Keeping, in which our own Government have been closely involved. Although these discussions came about mainly as a result of the acute crisis in the finances of the United Nations about two years ago, their course has already shown that they are leading to a total re-examination of the structure and purposes of the organisation, and, in particular, the general relationship between the main political organs of the United Nations, the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretary-General.
The discussions were established by a decision of the General Assembly about a year and a half ago with a view to examining not only the financial crisis then being undergone, but the general future peace-keeping capacity of the United Nations. The Committee was set up with a membership of 33, that is to say, a large membership of more than a third of the total membership of the United Nations, and it was given very wide terms of reference.
It would not be appropriate, and it is not necessary, for me to recount in great


detail the discussions that have taken place in the Committee. The most important development has been the inquiry that was undertaken by the Secretary-General and the then President of the General Assembly into the views of members, not only of the Committee but of the United Nations as a whole, on the financing, authorisation and control of peace-keeping operations by the United Nations. Since that time, these views have been published, and the Secretary-General, and the President of the Assembly also suggested some general guidelines that could guide the Committee in its future discussions.
Member States have now expressed their views on these guidelines, and discussions are now taking place mainly in private, in confidence, to see what measure of common ground can be found between the very different views that have been put forward by different members of the organisation on these very contentious issues.
What are the main issues that have come up in the Committee? Without wish to over-simplify extremely difficult and complex subjects, one can probably say that the most important single subject is the relative distribution of authority in the organisation between the General Assembly and the Security Council, how far it is possible for peace-keeping operations to be set in motion against the veto of one of the permanent members, and, in particular, how far any member should be obliged to give financial support to a peace-keeping operation which it has not voted into existence with its own vote in the first place.
The International Court of Justice has already given an advisory opinion to the effect that the General Assembly is empowered to authorise peaceful peacekeeping operations, that is, peace-keeping operations that do not require enforcement action by armed forces, and it has held that the expenses of these can be regarded as normal expenses of the organisation, to which all members are obliged to contribute.
It is possible that the best solution would be to leave the matter there, because there is advantage in it being made clear to members of the Security Council that, if they do not agree to establish a peace-keeping force in some situation of crisis, the General Assembly

itself is likely to do this, with the authority of the International Court of Justice, in which case it will be the General Assembly rather than the Security Council which will control the future activities of the force.
It may, therefore, not be necessary to spell out in more explicit terms the relative rights and rôles of the General Assembly and the Security Council. But, if it were necessary for these to be spelt out in greater detail, and if the British Government were to be asked for their views, I and, I think, many others in the House and outside would regard it as extremely important that the British Government should support the opinion of the International Court and continue to maintain the view that the General Assembly has the right to authorise peace-keeping operations if for any reason, such as the veto, the Security Council has failed to act.
One of the most important single problems which arise in this connection is the question of the control of operations after they have been authorised. It is, perhaps, a legitimate complaint of some of the permanent members of the Security Council, such as the Soviet Union and France, that on some occasions in the past an excessive degree of authority has rested with the Secretary-General himself, who has often, in a sense, been directly controlling these forces, being thereby put in a position in which he can quite crucially influence the political situation within States where the operations are taking place.
It seems, therefore, that one possible way of making progress on this difficult problem would be by establishing, or by agreeing to establish, where necessary, a political committee consisting of a fairly broad membership within the United Nations, possibly of the same composition as the Security Council itself, which could undertake the day-to-day control of operations, which the Security Council certainly cannot undertake, of course, thereby mediating, in some sense, between the Security Council and the commander of the forces in the field rather than relying on the Secretary-General himself to do this. A proposal along these lines would be an initiative which many of us would like the British Government to take in the deliberations of the Peace-Keeping Committee.
There are two other fields in which, perhaps, there is even more urgent need for an initiative by the British Government. One of these is the financing of peace-keeping operations, which as I said earlier, was the original cause of the crisis and of the establishment of the Committee. Here, there would seem to be great advantage in the establishment of a voluntary peace-keeping fund to which member States of the United Nations would contribute, with their normal contributions, though on a voluntary basis. The effect of this would be that, when a crisis arose, members either of the Security Council or of the General Assembly would be encouraged to authorise the establishment of a force in the knowledge that the finance to underwrite the force was available and was not likely to create the kind of crisis which arose from similar operations in the past.
The second initiative which, I believe, would be very valuable if it came from the British Government now is a proposal for a strengthening of the staff of the Secretary-General and his military adviser in New York to enable a greater degree of advance planning to be undertaken. Again, the effect of this would be that member States would have confidence that they could authorise the establishment of an operation of this kind in the knowledge that the forces were available and that the necessary organisation could be put in hand without the kind of ad hoc improvisations which have been necessary in the past.
Although this is to some extent a contentious matter, and one in which the British Government alone might not be able to take the initiative, it is one in which we should have the sympathy and support of many other members of the United Nations who are interested in this matter, including the Scandinavian countries, Canada and Holland in particular, and I am sure that joint action by ourselves with these countries would have a most valuable effect within the Committee.
There is the further point to be made that, whatever system for financing is evolved and whatever kind of preparations are made at United Nations headquarters in New York, it is most important to establish the principle that a share in the control of a peace-keeping force

should be enjoyed only by a Power which is contributing financially to that force. This has not always been established in the past. The advisory committee set up by the Secretary-General on these occasions has sometimes included Powers which, in practice, did not ultimately contribute to the force at all.
If it were known, on the other hand, that only those Powers which would contribute financially to the establishment of the force were to have any share in its control through the kind of committee I described earlier, this would be a valuable incentive to member States to agree to contribute financially to these forces in a way which very many States, including some of the most important members of the organisation, have not been prepared to do in the past.
I emphasise that this is not a remote matter of only marginal importance to us in this country. It is likely to affect the whole future fabric of international relations. The House will know that this whole theme is the subject of an early day Motion now on the Order Paper which has already attracted the signatures of very many hon. Members on both sides. Although I cannot speak for those hon. Members, nor for the Parliamentary Group for World Government which, I think, was responsible for initiating the Motion, I believe that very many of those hon. Members and of the members of the Group would welcome signs that the British Government were to take initiatives of the kind I have described.
British Governments of both parties have many times declared that they wished to make the United Nations the centre of their foreign policies. This is very easily said, of course, but it becomes convincing only when the words are translated into deeds. The record of the present Government is not bad in this respect. They have taken two quite important initiatives during the past year and a half, in their offer of logistic support for peace-keeping operations and in their offer of a financial contribution to overcome the financial crisis last summer, but a great deal more needs to be done.
I believe that very many people not only in the House, but also in the country outside would very much welcome a sign that the British Government were prepared to take new


initiatives to enable the United Nations to act as the effective guardian of peace and security in the world which its founders intended it to be.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I am sure that I can say on behalf of the whole House that it is a genuine pleasure to have listened to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard). When he began with a unilateral declaration of independence, I thought that something frightful was going to happen, but his remarks covered topics which are of fundamental importance to the future of the whole world. They are a subject on which, I am sure, the Minister who is to reply has been working, though a subject which, unfortunately, we too seldom debate in the House.
Although my home was in Oxford and I am glad, therefore, to congratulate a Member from Oxford, I must confess that I wish that he were with us on this side of the House, but I do sincerely congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and it is not just an ordinary politeness of the House when I say that I am sure we all look forward to his contributions to debates in the future.
When speaking earlier today, the Foreign Secretary said that he felt we ought to fit the debate to the general pattern of world events. I shall touch as briefly as I can on just one aspect, the growing lack of trust and confidence in the present Government's good faith. I will give an instance of this. The Foreign Secretary mentioned E.L.D.O. and said that the solution the Government had been seeking had been obtained. The hon. Member for Shored itch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) was rapporteur of a Western European Union report which supported E.L.D.O., although later he came to vote against it, as did other hon. Members, at the Western European Assembly. The general information around Paris was that the British Government said that they did not wish to continue in E.L.D.O. because they could not afford it; when they saw the reaction to what they said, they changed and said they were going to go ahead with it; and that what they had done was a method of negotiating. They cannot have it both ways. It was a great blow to the good name of this country

in that if this were a form of negotiation it should have been done straight.
But I want to deal mainly with South Arabia, which appears to raise a question of principle. The principle is that Commonwealth membership amounts to mutual defence, whether written or unwritten, and not just to some priority in material aid. Has this principle been jettisoned by the Socialist Government? I recall, as other hon. Members will, the Brave New Socialist World after the war, with Lord Attlee, Mr. Ernest Bevin and the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker), who played such a prominent part in it. Then it was understood that the new countries of the Commonwealth could count on the support of the United Kingdom against aggression out and beyond membership of the United Nations; self defence is the first priority of any Government, and when new countries went off in the first stages of their independence they always looked to this country for help.
The latest example I remember is that of India in 1962. There was no written agreement between India and this country, they are not members of S.E.A.T.O., and yet the whole Indian public welcomed Her Majesty's then advisers bringing aid to India when she was attacked by China.
Following what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) said, I want to deal very briefly with the Treaty of Friendship and Protection, Cmd. 2451—the so-called 1959 Treaty. Article I says:
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship and full and loyal co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Federation.
Details are given in the Annexe, Section 1, which says:
The United Kingdom shall take such steps as may at any time in the opinion of the United Kingdom be necessary or desirable for the defence of the Federation….
and it goes on to give some details.
In 1963 the Treaty was applied to the whole Federation and began, in Article I by saying that the
Treaty was supplementary to and to be read with the Treaty of Friendship and Protection, now called the Treaty of 1959.
These Treaties commit this country to something. No one can doubt that these Treaties which have been drawn up and


signed committed, and were intended to commit, South Arabia and the United Kingdom to mutual defence in perpetuity, whether dependent or independent. If words mean anything in that Treaty they surely mean what I have said.
Further to that, an undertaking was given by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), in July 1963 at the South Arabian Constitutional Conference, Cmnd. 2414. In HANSARD my right hon. Friend said:
… when representatives of the Government of the Federation asked for independence not later than 1968, they coupled this with a request that Britain should conclude a new defence agreement for the defence of the Federation after independence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February. 1966; Vol. 725, c. 250]
My right hon. Friend on behalf of Britain agreed to this request.
There is nothing in the communiqué which resulted from the meeting of some weeks ago except talk of payment of sums of money, £5 million towards the capital cost and £2½ million over a three-year period. What Her Majesty's present advisers fear, I understand, is an open-ended commitment. I had the privilege of being Minister at the Foreign Office. Surely they realise that the whole of life is an open-ended commitment, open at both ends and probably at the seams. We cannot tie up all our affairs in future to meet any contingency.
Surely this is based upon the Commonwealth and upon the mutual defence of countries which want to remain inside it? If Ministers are saying that Britian is withdrawing from this idea of mutual defence, the honest thing to do is to get up and say so and not leave a number of countries, not only in South Arabia but elsewhere, in doubt. This is not a pedantic or legal matter about whether these treaties are binding. I understand that the Prime Minister has said that the lawyers can get out of this Treaty. Surely this is not the way to approach visitors from abroad.

Mr. Edelman: I am not sure if I heard the hon. Gentleman aright. Did he purport to quote the Prime Minister as saying, and I quote:
The lawyers can get out of this Treaty"?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is what I understand, and I would like the Minister of State to deny this.

Sir T. Beamish: They have got out of it. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I understood that Ministers are saying that the Treaty, as drawn, is one from which the Government can escape and then further discussions will go on.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): The onus is upon the hon. Gentleman to substantiate such a grave allegation against the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Other quotations have been made. One hears as one goes around that the Prime Minister the other day was accusing my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham of causing difficulties in South Arabia. My right hon. Friend and myself and many hon. Members on both sides of the House keep in touch with numbers of individuals who live in these countries and who come to consult us on a number of occasions. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes has said, these individuals talked with the then Leader of the Opposition. What I am asking is whether the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, said to the leaders of South Arabia that this was a Treaty that they could get out of on legal terms. If it is, the Government should make clear—

Mr. John Hynd: Did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition say that?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: —that their view is that this Treaty is not binding and that they could get out of it.

Mr. George Thomson: I will try to deal with the questions put by other hon. Members, but the hon. Gentleman gave what I took to be a direct quotation from the Prime Minister and, unless he is able to substantiate this, then he is under an obligation to withdraw it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am not going to name any names here.

Sir T. Beamish: Their lives are at stake.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As my hon. and gallant Friend says, the lives of people are at stake. There are other instances,


to which I will come, of individuals losing their lives because they have carried on their loyalty to this country overseas. I am not prepared to name anyone, but I ask the Government to deny that this has been said by Ministers to those who have come to this country to try to defend themselves in the future when 'he present British Government are proposing to withdraw their commitment in 1968.
If words mean anything, then, as I understand it, the quotations which I have read mean that this country is committed in honour to make a new defence agreement with South Arabia, or to honour these former clear commitments. What has worried so many individuals, far beyond the boundaries of South Arabia and even in Australia today, as talks are going on with the Prime Minister of Australia, is not just that Her Majesty's present advisers are refusing to reach an agreement, but that they are denying that any obligation exists. That is the point which worries people, that that Treaty which I have read out, and the discussions held with, and undertakings given by, Her Majesty's former advisers constituted an obligation, and the honourable action if present Ministers deny this, is to recognise the obligation and ask that it should be renegotiated and then reach some settlement on that basis.
A distinguished visitor from the Persian Gulf—I am not going to name him, but he was not a sheikhly visitor—said the other day, "How can we believe the written, even less the spoken, word of a British Government again, when they had seen the casuistry of the Minister of Defence and heard the torrent of words from the Prime Minister denying what they believed was an undertaking by the British Government?" Whatever might be the party administering it for the time being, they are bound to have these feelings if they suddenly find that they are to be left to defend themselves in future.
When Ministers say that the United Nations can be relied on for help, what greater cynicism can there be than to say that to the people of South Arabia? The Yemen has been next door to that country for years. The United Nations ran out on them. Against the most naked

aggression by the Egyptians the Yemen received no help from the United Nations, and even organisations like the International Red Cross gave little or no help to the women and children being bombed—as far as I know even today—by the Egyptians. This is the last part of the world in which to turn to our Commonwealth colleagues, as they are still in South Arabia, and say that they can rely on the United Nations to help them.
The prospect is that this area is going to be another running sore from 1968 onwards. If we British walk out of Aden, it may lose its entrepot trade, and the hinterland could well revert to civil war, as is the case in Yemen, where we see the hinterland fighting against the coast.
By training and by inclination I am in favour of transferring power a bit too early, rather than a bit too late. I do not want to hang on to these things unduly long for political reasons, but the timing and conditions of transfer of power must be correct. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember that in Palestine and India communications were not nearly so good as they are today. One did not know until months or years afterwards what was going on. I believe that bad relations resulted because in the last few weeks of the transfer of power in Palestine the nerve and determination of the then Socialist Government failed and we left a running sore between Arabs, Jews and the British. I think that this is a great disservice to us all. Again, in India, by the last period of the transfer of power as it were going through the sound barrier we left the sub-continent with the problem of Kashmir.
These running sores are the result of a lack of determination in the final months of the transfer of power, and I pray that we shall not see them again. I hope that when he replies the Minister will tell us that the Government realise that the long-term loss which they are facing by carrying on as they have been doing during the last few months is greater than the cost of a little more patience and determination in honouring what the rest of the world believes is a debt, and in honouring an obligation. Do not let South Arabia be another blot,


not just on the social judgment, but on Britain's record.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker), like his colleague the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), and his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), showed that he has no concept of the increasing difficulties of maintaining a big world rôle today, and of the increasing and formidable cost of doing so.
The right hon. Member for Barnet set out—as his two colleagues have done—a formidable increased world rôle for Britain, a positive European policy, and a positive policy east of Suez, including Aden. It is much easier to do that when one is a shadow Foreign Minister, backed by the ample resources of a shadow defence budget, than when one starts to come up against the cost and difficulties of implementing such policies. What the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want simply cannot be done.
I think that the Government were wholly right to leave Aden. I am not clear what the Opposition's policy is. Would they stay in Aden, even though the people there wish them to get out? Would they stay there against the opposition of the local inhabitants in Aden? It is not clear to me whether they would stay in Aden after 1968.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what we have said. All that we have said is that the Government should honour this obligation. We are not trying to stay in Aden against the wishes of the local inhabitants.

Mr. Mayhew: My complaint is that that is what the Opposition are doing. They are asking us to honour this obligation, without giving the House the slightest idea of how they would honour it without being in Aden. That is the point which I want them to answer and perhaps the Opposition spokesman, when he winds up the debate for his party, will say whether he proposes staying in Aden after 1968 contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, and, if he is not prepared to

do that, how, militarily, he will maintain this obligation

Viscount Lambton: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government which gave the assurance to Aden. Did he protest at the time, or did he associate himself with the assurance?

Mr. Mayhew: I have said that I support the Government's action in Aden, and I am asking the Opposition what their policy would be. Will they stay in Aden after 1968, contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants? if not, how will they maintain their obligation to South Arabia?
I suggest to the Government—and here I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes—that there is an illogicality about leaving Aden, admittedly abruptly, admittedly soon, and hoping and intending to stay in the Persian Gulf after that situation has been created. I believe that there will be some common ground between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself on this matter. Why is there this contrast between the Government's attitude on Aden and their attitude towards the Gulf? What is the motive for this?
My right hon. Friend visited the Gulf recently, and I hope that he will explain in a little more detail the reason why the Government are now building up in Bahrein and in Sharjah with a view to maintaining for an indefinite period—as I understand it at least through the 'seventies and to some extent through the 'eighties—our special political and military position in the Gulf.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not say that this is being done to protect the oil. I hope that on both sides of the House we realise the fallacy of that argument. It is plain that we cannot stop the nationalisation of oil by military presence. A much bigger military presence in Iraq and Iran did not prevent the nationalisation of oil.
Experience in those two countries has also shown that whether the oil is nationalised or not it continues to flow. Experience in those two countries has shown, too, that what matters in the struggle for oil is not frigates or F I 1 1As, but the fact that the oil-producing country must do business with oil companies which are in a powerful position


as they control the retailing, wholesaling. processing, distribution, the tankers, and so on. To say that we are staying there for economic reasons does not carry weight on either side of the House. I have seen it suggested that we get the oil much cheaper as a result of being there. It would be a strange policy for a Labour Government to use military force to depress the price of raw materials of a developing country. It was not in our election manifesto.
It is impracticable, because if we consider the States that we are proposing to protect in the Gulf we see that they are not large oil producers. The large oil producers are Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, whom we are not protecting. The States that we are protecting produce only 4 per cent. of all Middle East oil. To suggest that we can depress the price of oil in those circumstances is nonsense.

Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle): We have a defence treaty with Kuwait. It is a similar defence treaty that we are urging the Government to negotiate with the Southern Federation.

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the Government ought to speak on this point, but as a member of the United Nations our obligation to Kuwait is different from our obligation to the other Gulf States with whom we have current treaties.
I disagree with the argument that our presence there will prevent President Nasser from controlling Middle Eastern oil. Then idea that if we were not there he could monopolise all the oil of the Middle East is an absurd one. It is the same argument that was put forward in respect of Suez, and it is even less plausible in respect of Middle Eastern oil, because, even if Nasser could get a grip on it and could, and would, exert political pressure, the idea that he would ruin himself and destroy the living standards of the people whose good will he must have, simply to embarrass us in respect of a quantity of oil amounting to only 4 per cent. of the total of Middle Eastern oil, seems to be beyond the bounds of possibility. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain in more detail the difference in the motives behind our policies for the Gulf and for Aden, respectively.
Another argument put forward is that if we leave we shall leave a power vacuum

behind us. This can be argued, but it cannot be argued by a Government who are leaving Aden in 1968. The threat to Aden is a good deal more direct than any threat to the Gulf. Such an argument cannot be used by the Government. On the contrary, our leaving Aden must unsettle, politically and militarily, our position in the Gulf. If we left by 1969–70, or at any time in the 'eighties or 'nineties, we would inevitably be bound to change the pattern of power in the Gulf. The question is whether the new power pattern would be unacceptably worse than the old.
I believe that even in South Arabia the result of our leaving might not have the disastrous consequences that Opposition Members foretell. It has induced in the rulers of South Arabia a great deal more realism about their foreign policy and, to some extent, their relations with each other. I believe that an expression of our intention to withdraw from the Gulf by 1970 would compel the rulers in the Gulf to mend their fences with each other and with South Arabia and to pay more and not less attention to improving and reforming their régimes, which reform is greatly overdue.
I cannot understand the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend this afternoon that if we are there all these changes will happen; that if we are there they can lean on us while these things happen. Precisely the opposite is the case. While the sheikhs can lean on us and look to us they will not mend their fences with each other; they will not have to trouble over their relations with South Arabia, and they will not reform their régimes. It is the prospect of having to cope with the real world after we leave which has brought the South Arabian rulers to study their position more realistically, and which will lead the sheikhs of the Persian Gulf to do the same.
The same principle holds good for South-East Asia, and almost throughout the east of Suez area. The attitude of the Government that they will stay in Singapore or the Gulf for as long as possible or "as long as we are wanted," gets the worst of every possible world. In the first place, the manner in which we leave these places is very important. If we go of our own volition, in a


planned manner, with preparation and a certain amount of dignity, we maintain our influence; we maintain the truth of the statement that we are not going simply for selfish or unworthy interests.
But if, like the Government, we say that we shall wait until we are pushed out, when we are pushed out it may happen at the wrong time, probably in conditions of humiliation and in circumstances where our enemies can say, "We told you so. We are pushing them out. Our propaganda has been right, and we have done it." The idea of staying as long as possible, until people want to push us out, is folly.
It is folly for a second reason, namely, because it makes every form of defence planning impossible. If we do not know when we are going we do not know how much to spend; we do not know whether to build expensive installations, or married quarters and schools for the troops. We do not know whether to lay out money for the weapons—often taking 10 years or more to develop—which are necessary to fulfil such a commitment. If we go on spending the money, what happens? We may suddenly have to leave, as we had to leave Mombasa, and as a result involve ourselves in criminal waste of public funds.
Alternatively, we may say that because we are uncertain how long we shall stay we shall not spend money, so we do not give the troops the married quarters or the schools that they want and—this is a favourite policy of the Treasury—we do not build the weapons we want, or the base installations. Then—and this is the worst crime of all—we are landed, still staying on, without the weapons, the amenities or the installations, and that is a crime on the Services. The whole conception of staying on in South-East Asia and in the Gulf seems to be quite wrong.
Conversely, if we take our courage in both hands and say that on a certain date in the future we are going to withdraw, not only will the political results be favourable when we do, but we shall be able to make economies in development, research and construction. Thus, there is an overwhelming case against waiting upon events, but, instead, for deciding that if we leave Aden we shall also leave the Gulf by 1969–70.
What I am saying about the Gulf applies elsewhere. Last Thursday, we had a debate on Vietnam. In my view, the Government were right to resist the demand—sincerely and cogently argued by my colleagues on the Left—suddenly to break the Anglo-American partnership at a time of maximum difficulty. I am sure that the Government would be wrong to do that. Any country which treats partnerships or alliances like that does not deserve to have partners or allies, and in the long run will not get them.
But it is one thing to refuse to break an alliance and a partnership suddenly; it is quite another to plan now to extend and to develop the Anglo-American partnership in Asia right through the 1970s and into the 1980s. That is a different matter altogether. Still more is it wrong to link such a policy with defence cuts which involve us in military dependence on the United States, with whom, as Vietnam has shown, we have fundamental disagreements over Communism in Asia.
The basic lesson of Vietnam, however, is that it illustrates once again the increasing difficulties and dangers of Western Anglo-Saxon peace-keeping east of Suez. It shows, once again, what limitations can be placed even on great military power by the political and psychological obstacles which are growing up all the time against Western peacekeeping. These obstacles have been growing steadily for years, with restrictions on over-flying, restrictions on the use of bases, restrictions on the use of Singapore otherwise than for local defence, restrictions on the use by the Americans and restrictions on our build-up in Bahrein, which is being impeded by the political difficulties and weaknesses of the ruler, which will not allow us to deploy as many troops there as we would wish.
All these obstacles are growing and there is all the time pressure against the Anglo-American, Anglo-Saxon peacekeeping rôle at the United Nations and elsewhere. Above all, there is the absence of support throughout the world for the Americans' peace-keeping in Vietnam and the fact that all that courage and all those sacrifices have not even contained North Vietnam. What a tribute to the growing political and psychological obstacles to the Anglo-Saxon peacekeeping rôle east of Suez.
None of these factors seems to enter the minds of hon. Members opposite when they deploy the case for a grand, imperial, uncosted rôle in the 1970s and 1980s. It was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barnet. He seemed to have no conception of the real world. The same applies to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. But I hoped from a radical Government for a little more understanding of this point of view. It is surely obvious, when we look round the world, when we see the growing power of our potential adversaries east of Suez to which the White Paper bore witness, when we see our diminished resources and all the obstacles I have mentioned, that either we must put more resources into this peace-keeping task, achieve some degree of self-sufficiency from the Americans, some real power, or else—in my view, this is the right solution—we should be prepared to withdraw from our east of Suez peace-keeping rôle.
The Government do neither of these things. The Government's attitude to our peace-keeping rôle is exactly the attitude of the Hindus to their sacred cow—neither feeding it nor putting it out of its misery. The economic Departments will not let it be fed; the overseas Departments will not let it give up the ghost. To the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Prime Minister gave an all-out commitment to the east of Suez rôle. He might be said to have seized the sacred cow by the horns. It was a serious error. The Government here committed the nation to a long-term east of Suez rôle without giving adequate reasons and without providing adequate resources.
The Government's east of Suez policy ignores the major trends in world affairs and the lessons of Vietnam. It conflicts with the Government's European policy and is based on a wholly wrong conception of Britain's future rôle, which is in Europe. Nor do they even stick to this east of Suez policy consistently. A prod from the Americans and we are staying east of Suez. A prod from Zurich and we deprive our Armed Forces of the weapons for the job and become dependent on the Americans, a prod from the Left wing and we offend the Americans on whom we have become dependent. Where, one asks, from what quarter, will the next wind blow and where will it take our foreign and defence policies?
Winding up gradually this east of Suez rôle will be the end of a long and sometimes glorious chapter, but if it is done carefully and deliberately, of our own volition, and with fair notice to our friends and allies, it is a more honourable course than muddling along at the mercy of events, pushed around by other countries.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: It is not, perhaps, surprising that the Foreign Secretary tried to defend the Government's policy of imposing the import surcharges in 1964 in breach of solemn treaties entered into by Britain. The difficulty is that he said that there was no other practicable possibility. We know now that the Government intend to withdraw these surcharges in the autumn, but there is no sign at all that our balance of payments difficulties, which they were imposed to solve, are getting any easier or are disappearing. In fact, if anything, our balance of payments difficulties look like getting more difficult.
Therefore, I should like to ask the Government whether they have now found practicable alternatives to their import surcharge which they maintain were not previously available. If so, what are these alternatives which will solve our balance of payments difficulties?
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), we all know, holds strong and extreme views about what Britain should do in withdrawing from all her commitments east of Suez. But what we do not often hear from hon. Members opposite, who harp upon the cost of fulfilling our treaties and agreements and Commonwealth ties of friendship, is the cost of breaking them, of ratting on our treaties and our friendships. I suggest that it would be a good exercise for hon. Members opposite to pay some attention to those possibilities.
It is constantly asked of hon. Members on this side, "What would you do? Would you stay if the people of the country did not want you there?" But what evidence do they ever adduce that the peoples of the Southern Arabian Federation want us to go? The only evidence we have at the moment is strong evidence that they want us to stay. What


is more, that appears to be so in South-East Asia and Malaysia. I see no indication at present that they want to kick us out. If anything, every indication is that the Government of Malaysia wants Britain to fulfil her Commonwealth ties of friendship and assistance.
This is a very vulnerable, divided and unstable part of the world—

Mr. R. T. Paget: If this really is Malaysia's enthusiasm, why are they demanding an almost immediate withdrawal from Borneo, where we have been defending their frontiers?

Mr. Peel: In fact, of course, there is no evidence that they want us to pull out quicker than is reasonable in the circumstances. They are, quite rightly and with our help, trying to build up their own position there to meet the different situations with their neighbours. They have asked for our help and, quite rightly, we have given it. We on this side of the House are worried, in view of the Government's words and actions in other parts of the world, that there will be a massive withdrawal from South-East Asia before the Governments there want us to go and before they are ready to meet the difficulties and dangers which exist there and which will continue to exist for a considerable time.
Partly, perhaps, from the accidents of history, this is a very divided and very unstable part of the world. There is no certainty how political events will develop there. It is sometimes interesting to speculate on the very different position which might obtain in South-East Asia today if the British Government at the time had supported that great man Sir Stamford Raffles, when he proposed that the whole of Indonesia and Malaya should form one unit. Had we backed him then, the whole of the Indonesian and Malayan archipelago might today be one nation of 90 million people, speaking virtually the same language, having the same religion and being virtually the same racially. That might have formed a magnificent bulwark of stability in South-East Asia—but it did not happen.
Another factor which creates instability in that part of the world is the quite definite threat of Communist China, which is just as expansionist and im-

perialist as was Nationalist China. This has been part and parcel of Chinese history for hundreds of years. The Chinese exercised suzerainty over very large parts of South-East Asia for generations, and I believe that the Chinese of Communist China, not only ideologically, but in themselves, are still expansionist, and this tends to create a very unstable situation in that part of the world. We and the countries in South-East Asia are faced with a very difficult threat, arising from methods of subversion and infiltration leading eventually to revolution and force.
Whether hon. Members opposite agree with that rather depressing assessment of Chinese intentions or not, I am sure that they will agree that China's intentions are at the very best extremely doubtful and that in these circumstances it must be a vital British and free world interest to do all that we can to promote stability, strength and prosperity in South-East Asia. It cannot possibly be in the interests of Britain or the free world that China should control and dominate South-East Asia. If she did, it would threaten India and Australasia and ultimately it would upset the whole balance of power in the world and create a grave world threat.
There are other important British and free world interests in South-East Asia which, I think, we should neglect at our peril. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East talked about "the outworn idea" that we need a military presence to protect our oil in the Middle East and said that the same argument may apply to commercial interests in South-East Asia. But those interests are not only British, they are Commonwealth interests, and they are considerable. It is important in the economic situation of this country and with our balance-of-payments problems that we should not overlook these matters.
I am not suggesting that it is necessary for Britain to stay there merely to protect these interests, but these are mutual interests which are understood by our friends in that part of the world and they should not be overlooked. What is even more important is the necessity to maintain and to fulfil our Commonwealth ties of friendship and support where we are wanted. There is every indication that Malaysia and Australasia are very anxious that Britain should not


precipitately withdraw completely from that part of the world.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the hon. Member explain why our economic interests will fail if we withdraw our military presence? We have an increasing export trade with the Soviet Union, but no military presence there.

Mr. Peel: That is too easy an explanation by the hon. Member. It is not that we are afraid that they will fail, but if we walk out before our friends are ready to look after themselves both we and they will suffer, and it is important that we should meet the wishes of our friends in helping them to become strong enough to defend their freedom and their prosperity. This is something that we rat on at our peril.
Many hon. Members opposite tend to overlook that over the years we have built up a great tradition of friendship and trust in South-East Asia. We have heard so much criticism of Britain's colonial rôle in the past that we tend to overlook what Britain's Colonial Service in this century has accomplished. I spent over 20 years of my life in that part of the world, and I can vouch for the fact that the people of Malaysia both trusted and had confidence in Britain. Unless recent actions on the part of the British Government have upset that feeling, I believe that they still trust us and still want us to help them to reach a position of strength and stability.
There are signs that the countries in South-East Asia are recognising the expansionist ambitions of China and are more determined to co-operate among themselves and to work together. It seems to me to be a vital British interest to help this movement forward. The South-East Asia Treaty Organisation should be strengthened if possible and should be expanded if possible.

Mr. James Dickens: Is the hon. Member aware that the most noted authority on Chinese foreign policy in this country, Mr. Roderick McFarquhar, editor of China Quarterly, and a distinguished commentator on Chinese affairs, went on record in a Fabian lecture as saying, "If the basis of Britain's east of Suez policy is fear of Chinese expansion, then I believe that fear to be entirely mistaken." How does the hon.

Member bring forward evidence to support this view of Chinese expansion in South-East Asia against the background of that quotation?

Mr. Peel: There is considerable evidence of Chinese expansion in Asia. It was not very long ago that Tibet was invaded by the Chinese and that India was invaded by the Chinese, and the Chinese are giving considerable assistance to the North Vietnamese. I can assure the hon. Member, after having spent 20 years out there, that there is plenty of evidence of Chinese penetration and infiltration in the whole of Asia. It is a very unwise person who thinks that the Chinese have no expansionist ideas. Both ideologically and racially, I believe that they have.
Without a doubt it is in our interests and it is our responsibility that we should fulfil our commitments in South-East Asia and that we should not scuttle out of South-East Asia precipitately. We should, I agree, try to persuade our friends in the free world, particularly in Europe, to assume a somewhat larger part of the burden of defending the free world's interests in various parts of the world. It is a difficult business. Whether they do or not, I regard it as very dangerous for us to withdraw, either in the very near future or suddenly, from both the Middle East and South-East Asia.
I turn for a moment to Europe. The communiqué issued after the talks with the French Ministers was extremely disappointing on the two principal subjects which affect the strength, safety and freedom of the Western world. First, N.A.T.O. It is tragic that the French have decided that they wish to withdraw from N.A.T.O. or appear to wish to do so. Undoubtedly, if they do, it will seriously weaken that organisation.
It is difficult at present to decide exactly what the French want. We hear talk that they wish to remain loyal members of the Atlantic Alliance, but as far as one can see they talk in terms of its being one of those old defensive alliances. The trouble about them is that they have twice failed in the last 30 years to prevent world war.
We have found that closely integrated commands in N.A.T.O. have proved successful in maintaining peace and stability in Europe. Therefore, I simply do not understand why the French wish to break


it up or to weaken it. There is certainly no sign I can see of Russia weakening herself. There is certainly no evidence that the Russians "talk turkey" better to people who have weakened themselves. All the evidence goes to show that one gets on better with the Russians if one talks from strength. That seems to me to be another reason why we should remain strong and talk from strength. Certainly, there is no evidence whatever of the Russians in any way weakening their tremendous military potential.
On other scores, too, N.A.T.O. has proved its value. It has two other great advantages. It keeps German forces within a closely integrated Western command and prevents the Germans from acting alone. That is very important. I have heard young Germans say that it we had had a properly integrated command structure before the last war, Hitler would never have dared to attack the West. That may very well be true.
The other great advantage which N.A.T.O. has had is that it has ensured an American presence in Europe. One of the things which I simply do not understand is the idea that seems to permeate certain of our French friends that America should withdraw from Europe. America has learned her bitter lesson. Twice in the last thirty years she has realised that her freedom depended on the freedom of Europe. With thousands of American graves in Europe, she wants to do everything possible to see that it never happens again. America has a vested interest in Europe, she has every right to be there and Europe is free only because eventually she came there. Therefore, to contemplate any American withdrawal or to demand American withdrawal from Europe seems to me to be a very shortsighted policy.
I have no doubt that we shall have to come to talks with the French about the future of the Atlantic Alliance. It seems to me that there are certain subjects in which the French will maintain a considerable interest. For example, the highly sophisticated early-warning system is something of which they will very much wish to remain members or to remain in contact with. Secondly, a highly sophisticated communications system is something that the French will not want to

lose. Thirdly, in research and development the French are not likely to want to lose out on the great advantages that have flowed from N.A.T.O. in that direction.
Those are three subjects in which the French will remain extremely interested. When we come to talks with them, I hope that when we discuss these things they will think again about the necessity for having an efficient, properly-integrated command structure that will enable the Atlantic Alliance to fulfil its overriding purpose.
These are some of the problems that face us. The world scene is certainly not encouraging. What, unfortunately, makes it worse is that recent Government actions have certainly not improved matters. We see on every hand a lack of confidence in Britain's word. This is a tragic situation. What we want is somebody to speak strongly from those benches for Britain and for the free world and to ensure that we play our proper part and do not scuttle everywhere.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) and many of the hon. Members who preceded him have made surprisingly partisan speeches in the course of the evening. Most of them, I thought, had learned more sense in their old age, like myself. A great many of their prognostications and broodings really amount to this. They were saying, in effect, that Her Majesty's Government are perfidious, are pursuing a devious course in their foreign relations and are reneging on their main commitments. That is what hon. Members opposite have been saying.
Whatever views we may have about Her Majesty's Government, that is not the central charge that could be levelled against them. If one takes the main commitments of British foreign policy in N.A.T.O., we could not be firmer. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been extremely firm in this matter. If one takes the Anglo-American Alliance, apart from a little local difficulty over some bombs at Hanoi, we have been extremely firm throughout and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has shown great courage in meeting the


arguments which have suggested British withdrawal and dissociation from American foreign policy. If one takes the maintenance of the British deterrent or our commitments to Malaysia in the face of the Indonesian confrontation, in all these things we have been extremely firm and I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the skill and determination which they have shown on these central issues.
The debate today has centred around the same theme and subject which has gone on in this House for quite a time, since, as Mr. Dean Acheson put it, we ceased to be an imperial centre and have failed to find a new function. It centres today as a corollary around the Defence White Paper, which was published earlier this year, when the British Government's policy was maintained as Britain continuing to honour our commitments to our Allies and to play our proper part in defending the interests of the free world. That statement of a defence objective is meaningless without an overall assessment of our national political strategy. I propose to devote the few minutes with which I shall detain the House to this central question of what should be the overall national strategy.
What kind of Britain do we want? Do we see ourselves as a major European Power, as part of a European community? Do we think that we can sustain our position outside the European community, or do we see ourselves as some kind of larger, more pompous, Scandinavian social democracy, or as some kind of West European Yugoslavia? Which of these rôles do my hon. and right hon. Friends and members of the party opposite see ourselves fulfilling? Before one can hope to answer these questions one has to look at the areas of Britain's vital national interest.
What are these areas? The first is Europe. That is why we are founder members of N.A.T.O. That is why we have over 50,000 troops stationed in Germany. That is why we attach so much importance to the whole North Atlantic concept. In this respect, we have to ask ourselves one or two other questions as well, Although we are founder members of N.A.T.O. and recognise that N.A.T.O. played a decisive part in maintaining political stability in Europe at

the time, and that without it we should not now be holding this kind of debate, is the situation in Europe today the same as it was when N.A.T.O. came into being?
The answer is that the situation is not the same. It is changing, and it is always changing. There have been a number of major changes which could account, for the moment at any rate, for the less aggressive Soviet policy in Europe; less aggressive, partly for reasons of a large sense of shock when they met the glint of American steel at the time of the Cuba crisis, partly because of the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. during the years, partly because of internal changes in the Soviet Union, too, and partly because of the emergence of China and the conflicts within the Sino-Soviet bloc. These are all differences that have been growing and which are likely to continue to grow along these lines in the years ahead.
In this situation, how should we regard N.A.T.O. and its future function? The first thing we have to agree upon is that it would be very unwise indeed to dismantle an organisation upon which stability in Europe so much depends. It would be a very grave step to knock down the bricks which were so slowly erected, and with such difficulty, hardship and heart-searching at the time; they are the central bastions of our own national security in Europe.
At the same time, there is the problem of France. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East, said that he failed to understand President de Gaulle's viewpoint. We all have these question marks about the General, for whom I have a very great admiration and affection, and a certain respect. I think that he broods long and deeply about what he considers to be the future course of events for the French national interest and then delivers himself of these viewpoints.
He may, in some respects, be out of date in some of his political thinking. He may be entertaining, some of us might think, illusions of political grandeur. He may even, of course, in his thought about unilateral action be a secret reader of Tribune—who knows? Nevertheless, he exists, and the concept of political unity in Europe without France is just a nonsense, in just the same way as the military effectiveness of N.A.T.O. could


not have made sense without West German rearmament at the time. So the second thing we must do is always to keep the French chair vacant for any changes in French policy.
The third thing is not to regard N.A.T.O. merely as a defensive alliance but as a position from which to negotiate. The strength of N.A.T.O. is the strength of a negotiating position as and when and if the moment becomes propitious.
Finally, as the world grows smaller we have to look on N.A.T.O. as a much wider organisation with wider responsibility, or, at least, with the nations involved in it looking out to the rest of the world. It cannot remain in respect of certain individual countries—and it does not remain in respect of some countries—indefinitely a purely inward-looking European alliance. There are obligations which some countries have and sustain outside in which certain other countries have an equal national interest in sustaining.
That brings me to the second area of British national interest, which is the east of Suez area—around the shores of the Indian Ocean, in the Arabian Gulf and in South-East Asia. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), in his courageous resignation speech last March, asked a very important question, and he asked it again in a different form today. If I may presume to say so, whilst I think that he asked the right question, I am not sure that he gave the right answer, and perhaps I might specify it more clearly point by point.
First of all, we have the Gulf. My hon. Friend made great play with the fact that we might be there to protect the oil, or to get cheaper oil, or in some way to perpetuate colonialism. That is not the case. By the accident of history, this is one part of the world where the Pax Britannica still runs—temporarily, at any rate. If we withdrew from this area it would undoubtedly create very great political instability which could easily lead to a situation the outcome of which we cannot foresee at the moment.
My hon. Friend spoke of Kuwait. The State of Kuwait possibly exists today because the British Government of the day

was able to fly in troops at short notice when it was under threat from Iraq. Without doubt, the Persians would lay claim to Bahrain, to which they have laid claim constantly. The Saudis would grab Buraimi. A situation could easily develop there which, in an area where the prizes are so great, could lead to a political instability which could even constitute a threat to world peace. Therefore, at the moment—I do not say permanently—we have to say in the Gulf. It is a world obligation.
I now come to the larger question—and here I have more common ground with my hon. Friend—of the efficacy of the arrangements we are making. In the course of my hon. Friend's resignation turmoil—I put it that way, because there was his speech in the House and his appearances on television—and I forget at which one it was—he said that he might not have resigned if the Government had agreed to the extra aircraft carrier, while, at the same time, he was against the east of Suez policy as a whole. That argument may not have appeared logical but, to use an Irish-ism, there is logicality in that illogicality, because one either has a policy that will be effective or one does not have that policy.
In the withdrawal from Aden, the absence of carrier-borne forces and the limited nature of the forces it is envisaged putting in at Bahrein doubts are raised as to the efficacy of our policy in the Gulf should the need arise. This is something that I think the Government have to make very clear. I doubt whether the forces we are now envisaging in the Gulf will be adequate for the job. This, of course, means paying a higher price—we cannot escape that; and I do not deny the problem of the economic aspect of the whole east of Suez policy.
Then, around the shores of the Indian Ocean are various British interests. They are there, again, for reasons of history, and also for reasons of other ties that have grown up. Our rôle is inevitably very much a subsidiary one to that of the United States of America, but it is a rôle of interest, and of specific interest to the whole Western world. Our representation, our military presence in Malaysia, has played a very important part, as I have said, in the Indonesian confrontation.
If we were to withdraw, we should be contracting out of world politics as a nation. It may be that some hon. Members want us to do this. It is a tenable point of view. It is not one with which I agree. But if we contract out of world politics and cease to be a Power with interests and a military presence in different parts of the world, we have only ourselves to blame when things go wrong. It is no good saying that the end of the world is coming because bombs are dropping in Hanoi if we have not a military presence there to exercise political influence. This was the lesson of the Korean war and of the representations which Earl Attlee made as Prime Minister when he went to Washington in 1950. These are the lessons now. It is no good expecting to preach to other countries unless we are prepared to make a contribution. The philosophy of Little England with a big mouth cannot be an effective foreign policy for this country.
I should like to say a few words about the Vietnam situation, because it is relevant to what I have been saying. I was puzzled by the controversies of a few days ago. I can see that there is sound logic in supporting the American policy. I can see that there is logic in disagreeing with the whole of American policy. I followed the Prime Minister's arguments very carefully, but I failed to see the logic of supporting the American foreign policy in Vietnam and at the same time dissociating this country from the bombing at Hanoi. This was a limited military objective. The photographs show clearly how accurate the bombing was. The distance between the oil tanks and Hanoi is considerable. 'They are right across the river. If it is all right to drop bombs on villages, why is it all wrong to drop bombs on oil tanks?
The United States policy has a very important supporting factor. I subscribe to the domino theory. If the Americans were to withdraw from Vietnam, the consequences in South-East Asia and wider afield could be very damaging indeed. The perimeter of disturbance would extend right down to Australia and New Zealand and right along the frontiers of India.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East spoke about the emergence of China

as a military threat and the growing aspirations of the Chinese foreign policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) referred to Mr. Roderick McFarquhar's Fabian Society lecture. I agree with a great deal of what Mr. McFarquhar says, but I do not subscribe to his interpretation of Chinese intentions. It is perfectly true that the Chinese have limited capacity for action as of now. But if their capacity for action were ever to match their aspirations the situation would be very different. We have only to look at the effects of their aggressive foreign policy in Indo-China over the years and the threats which they posed along the northern Indian frontier to see the possibilities if there were not effective military answers available in the area.
The problem all along the Chinese frontier is that the local national Governments are not in a position, and are not likely to be in a position for a very long time, if ever, to maintain the balance of power without Western support. This is the reason for the whole Western east of Suez policy. The question is whether this country wishes to participate in that east of Suez policy and what we are able to contribute to it. It cannot be merely a defensive policy. That is the essential prerequisite if we have to have an effective defence perimeter in Asia, in exactly the same way as we had to have one in Europe in 1947 and 1948.
But behind it has to be the social and political answers in a situation which is perhaps analogous to Europe at the time of the Marshall Plan, but much more difficult and much greater. The Foreign Secretary spoke about poverty in South-East Asia and the difficulties facing the Governments in the area. Mr. McNamara's famous speech at Montreal in mid-May spotlighted these in great detail. This is an obligation which can be met only collectively by the Western nations, and again the question is whether we wish to contract out of that obligation.
The need for an east of Suez policy is in my judgment, paramountly clear. The question is whether we have the means and whether we have the will. Only this House can answer this question. May I say a few words about the means. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary


rightly said today in answer to a Question that entry into the Common Market would not of itself be a solution to Britain's economic problems. That is true. On the other hand, it is sometimes difficult to see a solution to the British economic problems unless we have a wider economic base. It is a case of chicken and the egg. I will not go into the biological details of whether the chicken or the egg came first, but there is a case for having the chicken first and then the nest egg. We have to get our economic problems right. This would make us a much more attractive proposition to European countries. One of the major objections to British entry into Europe is the palpable weakness of sterling and the obligations which would have to be incurred by the Europeans.
Nevertheless, the balance of national interest is overwhelmingly on the side of Britain's entry into Europe and there is no substitute for this. Some hon. Members take the view that we should not join Europe at any cost. Some hon. Members put forward a number of conditions. I take the view that the Gaitskell conditions are virtually irrelevant; circumstances are changing. Today, what is the Commonwealth, on which he laid great stress? Is it such a homogeneous unit as all that? The real problem is New Zealand and whether we can negotiate some satisfactory arrangement concerning the New Zealanders? Taking the long-term view, the market of New Zealand and Australia ultimately will be in the teeming Orient, particularly in Japan.
There is the question of the British independent foreign policy. Since when have we had an independent foreign policy? One cannot have it in the modern world. There is the question of British agriculture. I have the honour to represent a great farming county. I know that there are problems of adjustment. People will have to adjust themselves to change. Some aspects of agriculture will suffer, but other aspects will gain. On balance, the agricultural objection to British entry is not valid. In any case, Britain's foreign policy for centuries cannot be determined by sectional interests or even one's constituents.
There is the question of the Anglo-American Alliance and Britain's special position with the Americans. That is a

dissolving position which, if it has not dissolved altogether, will very soon dissolve. I cannot see the objections to British entry other than the problems of adjustment, which I am sure can be dealt with in due course, although I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that this may not be the time for entry, for obvious reasons. There is no possibility of our sustaining an east of Suez policy unless we have a wider and more secure economic base.
On the question of the will, I know the guns versus butter argument. I know that many of my hon. Friends think that instead of spending the money on arms east of Suez it would be much better employed if it were spent on hospitals in Britain. But the problems east of Suez are not merely military. They are also social. A great deal of the money will have to be spent by the richer nations if we are to have any solution to offer the east of Suez countries on east of Suez social services and a rising standard of life. Otherwise, there will be no effective military defence. It is pure selfishness for us to think purely in terms of our own social services as against those of other countries whose social services are virtually non-existent.
The guns versus butter argument is a valid argument only up to a point. If we insist on having cream on the butter as well, we may well go the way that history has shown and end up by having olive oil only. Many countries have suffered this fate in the past.
What this amounts to is this: What kind of Britain do we want? It must be a major modern European power with responsibilities to the world. These responsibilities cannot be met by military and political withdrawal. They can be met only by wise underpinning of military and political positions. They cannot be created without a more firm economic base. I accept that. But if this country were to turn its back on its history and its obligations, it would be a heavy charge against our generation that we ran away in the face of what is really the greatest social challenge in the recorded history of man.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) too


closely in his analysis of our east of Suez rôle. It was that part of his speech with which I found myself in the greatest disagreement. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) stated as clearly as I have ever heard it stated my own attitude to the east of Suez situation.
I want to refer back to the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke when he quoted Mr. Dean Acheson. Mr. Dean Acheson actually said that Britain had lost an empire but not ye found a rôle. This debate is about that rôle, and any foreign affairs debate in this House should be about that rôle.
The answer that one gives depends largely on the historical perspective which one takes. I see it as being the problem of adjusting to a post-imperial rôle. My view of history is that no imperial nation in the history of the world has been able to do this yet. It may well be that there is some law of destiny that forbids nations to adjust satisfactorily when they have lost their empire. I hope that is not true. I want passionately to try to make this nation the first to adjust satisfactorily to this new rôle. I believe that the task of my generation is to build a new nation on the foundations of an old imperial power.
I recall a television interview with the new Prime Minister Mr. Harold Macmillan, way back in pre-1959 days. I was very impressed by the point he made that only for a very brief period in our history were we, in everyone's view, a great world Power; that in fact the greatest moments for Britain had been during periods when the rest of the world did not really think of us as a great world Power, but when nevertheless we had a very satisfying and exciting rôle indeed.
How are we to build this new nation on the foundations of this old imperial power? Part of the answer lies in our social policy at home. Part of it, however, lies in our economic attitudes and our attitudes to ourselves as a trading nation. Part of it also lies in our relationships with other nations—indeed, in our foreign policy.
I believe that economics is the most important of all these. Britain's power lies where Britain's brass lies and it has done so throughout history. There is an old historical axiom that trade follows

the flag. That, as Henry Ford would have said, is bunk. The flag follows trade. It always has and it always will. Drake was not interested in some mystical imperial rôle. He was interested in nabbing King Philip's Spanish silver. The East India Company forged our entry into India: and it was not for any mystical imperial rôle either that the clerks of the East India Company went there. So while we have to think in terms of our international relationships generally, nevertheless we have also to look to being a wealthy nation, to building up ourselves as a powerful economic entity. This is really where our rôle lies.
I also believe that the future of this new nation can be just as satisfying as the past has been to the individual inhabitants. I am not a "Little Englander". Those who want to withdraw from east of Suez are sometimes accused of being "Little Englanders", but I do not want to cut commitments in order to retreat. I want to withdraw so that we can regroup in order that we may advance.
I want this evening to deal with only one part of that advance. That part is in Europe, because I am a passionate European for historical, political and economic reasons, in that order. I am a voluntary exile from the party opposite, very largely because of my attitude to Europe and the attitude of the party opposite to Europe over these last ten years.
I want very briefly to re-state the reasons why I believe this country's future is in Europe. I believe that the whole of this ideal has been betrayed by lack of political leadership ever since the war. I do not want to blame any one party. We had Ernest Bevin setting his heart against it in the immediate postwar period. We had Churchill in opposition telling us that Europe was our destiny and making splendid and magnificent speeches at Strasbourg and elsewhere. Yet when he came to hold the reins of power in his hands he, too, was unable to carry his party into Europe with him. It was, after all, a Conservative Government who withdrew, in 1955, our observers from the talks to discuss the formation of the Common Market.
It is not very satisfactory for hon Members on this side of the House to grip


and thump the Dispatch Box and say that the Conservative Party is a European party, that the party opposite is not, and that the real heart of Europeanism lies on the Conservative Benches. I remind the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that, whatever he may have said this afternoon, in 1959 he used these words:
We never dreamed of joining the Common Market. If we joined we would have to abolish all tariff protection for agriculture and horticulture and give up control of our own agricultural policy. This would mean an end to argicultural reviews and the Acts of 1947 and 1957. '
It is not my purpose, although it has unfortunately been the purpose of one or two hon. Members in this debate, to indulge in a kind of political slanging match as to who is responsible for this or as to who is the most European party in the country. This evening I want to try to find out what is the Government's purpose now in relation to Europe.
What about the political reasons for going into Europe? What about the political implications? I want to quote from some answers that the Prime Minister gave to various hon. Members on 19th May. In reply to a Question tabled by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) the Prime Minister gave this reply:
There is no question of Her Majesty's Government in such negotiations entering into any arrangements which would involve a supranational Government or a Parliamentary assembly to which this House would be subordinated.
The Prime Minister went on in like manner; he made several statements of the same sort.
When I mentioned a pamphlet which had been published by the "Keep Left" group in 1947 the Prime Minister said this:
I do not think that any of my hon. Friends … have ever felt that it was right to set up a directly elected assembly in the foreseeable future, within the next twenty or so years at any rate, to which this Parliament and this country would be subordinate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1966; Vol. 728, cc. 1554–57.]
There is a great deal more like that in those columns of HANSARD. It was a straight denial of the fact that Europe and our entry into Europe is primarily a political issue.
I believe that this is the great mistake of our time, and he follows the Conservative Government in making it, because the great tragedy of our negotiations with Europe during this last decade has been that all politicians who have tried or have wanted to advocate the cause have found themselves inhibited from admitting to the British public that sovereignty was involved. Of course, it is involved and one cannot deny this. The time has come to be absolutely frank about the political implications.
If one looks at the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome one finds these words in the first sentence:
Determined to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,
Article 189 spells it out:
… the Council and the Commission shall adopt regulations and directives, to make decisions and formulate recommendations or opinions. Regulations shall have a general application. They shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable in each Member State.
I do not intend to continue the quotation of that article, but in four or five short sharp sentences it defines absolutely, in my view, what was in the hearts of the original architects of the European idea.
I do not believe that it does the European cause or the cause of this country any service at all to deny that politics are involved, or that there will be a substantial surrender of sovereignty if we enter Europe. I fought that last election campaign on this. I told everyone that I was passionately in favour of going into a supra-national Europe. I made over 400 speeches in four weeks, and I think in every one of them I said this. I ended up with one of the largest radical votes ever recorded in my constituency.
I do not believe that politicians have anything to be frightened of in this. This is a crisis of leadership. It is not good enough for any Government to say "I am afraid the people will not understand that." The people will understand a great deal more than some politicians give them credit for, provided that political leadership is exercised in the proper way.
These inhibitions about Europe were not always the view of hon. Members opposite. In that same pamphlet "Keep Left", which was written by many hon.


Members still in the House, we have the following:
The Channel has ceased to matter, and, strategically, we British have become Europeans whose prosperity and security depend on that of the rest of Europe. Working together, we are still strong enough to hold the balance of world power, to halt the division into a Western and an Eastern bloc, and so to make the United Nations a reality.
That was written in 1947 by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who is now Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I should like to refer to the Foreign Secretary's remarks on this subject. He said that we had to get our economy right first. I must ask him, when was our economy ever right? If he looks up Lloyd George's speeches he will find that we had a balance of payments problem then, and we have had one ever since. If we are going to wait till we have got the balance of payments out of our system, until we stop discussing the economic problems of Britain and live in the sort of paradise that Socialism will create, in the view of hon. Members opposite at least, we shall never achieve entry into Europe, because the economy will never be right according to all of us.
The Foreign Secretary also said that going into Europe was not the cure for our economic problems. I agree that going into Europe is not some kind of magic cure-all for everything that is wrong with our economy. But how far it is a cure depends on what one believes is wrong with our economy. If one takes the view, as I do, that British economic problems have been primarily caused by lack of sufficient demand, and lack of sufficient investment through lack of a large enough market, then going into Europe will solve a considerable number of our economic problems. But I accept that it will not cure them all.
We cannot stand back and say that we cannot go in until we have got our economy right, or that we cannot go in because it will not do us any good anyway. We have got to go in to find the larger home market and to find the reserve currency pool which will back sterling as an international currency.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly

clear that he is willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of Britain for his ungovernable emotional attachment to Europe. He has also mentioned agriculture. During the past nine years at no time has there been any question of renegotiating the basic elements of the Treaty of Rome with regard to agriculture. Does the hon. Gentleman speak for his party in this matter and say that the conditions now obtaining must be accepted and that entry must take place on those conditions?

Mr. Pardoe: I should like to take up this point because I was coming to it. It relates to the five conditions laid down by the Labour Party. I should like to ask hon. Members opposite how far they accept these conditions. How far do they wish to rewrite the Rome Treaty in order to get in on these terms? Some hon. Members opposite have mentioned certain conditions. The hon. Member for Pembroke mentioned a special arrangement with the United States. It does not happen to be one of the five conditions, and it might help if all hon. Members opposite knew what their party stood for.
The first condition as set out in the statement by the National Executive Committee on 29th September, 1962, stated:
Strong and binding safeguards for the trade and other interests of our friends and partners in the Commonwealth.
I believe that this condition is no longer anything like as strong as it was then. Of course, there are grave difficulties for New Zealand. This has already been mentioned. New Zealand exports a large part of her total output to this country. She is in a sense a kind of home field for this country. We have to make special provisions for New Zealand. Those provisions will have to be political. The real solution to New Zealand's problems, if we enter the Common Market, is some sort of union with this country because this is the only basis on which she can secure her tremendous economic dependency upon us.
The second condition states:
Freedom as at present to pursue our own foreign policy.
Note the words "as at present". Surely, no one will conflict with this condition. We shall, within the foreseeable future, be free to exercise our own foreign policy.
The third condition states:
Fulfilment of the Government's pledge to our associates in the European Free Trade Area.
Here again, there is plenty of room for manoeuvre and negotiation. I do not see that that should be a stumbling block.
The fourth condition is a very inhibiting factor with certain hon. Members opposite:
The right to plan our own economy.
Surely the time has come when we should realise that we are a nation in hock. Devaluation is staved off by the courtesy of the international pawnbrokers. We do not plan our own economy in isolation. We cannot. Very rarely have we done so.
The fifth and last point is that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—"guarantees to safeguard the position of British agriculture". Like the hon. Member for Pembroke, I am from an agricultural constituency. I campaigned to go in and campaigned against the conditions laid down by the National Farmers' Union. I do not suppose that many people who have heard the arguments would ever think that I would go in on any conditions at all. Nevertheless, I have advocated that we should be prepared to accept the European agricultural system. I do not believe that it would be disastrous for British agriculture. I am convinced—I have said it over and over again to farmers in my constituency and they have accepted it—that our farming depends for its prosperity upon the general prosperity of the nation. The farmers must have a market for their goods, and British industrial workers have to buy the food that the farmers produce. Unless we can provide a satisfactory economic basis, they will not be able to sell their goods.
Therefore, I hope that we shall hear at some time in the future from the Government a statement of faith in the European ideal. I regard my position in this House as being very largely to advocate the furtherance of that European ideal. I hope that the Government will get out and campaign for Europe. It is no good saying that we have to make conditions before we get in. It is the old argument about joining a club. This club happens to be going very well indeed. One cannot say to any club, "I will join provided that you do x, y and z". One

can, however, join and change the conditions afterwards.
Very great support for that point is written into the Rome Treaty in Article 236. There is support for the ideal among the younger generation. This will, I think, appeal to hon. Members opposite who fear the political implications of what I am saying—I hope and pray that the Government will not, like all previous Governments, fail my generation.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: With regret, I will not follow the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in his peroration on Europe. I am sorry that I was not present during one of his 400 speeches on that subject.
I want to come back to reality for a few minutes. I should not like the debate to conclude without reference to one startlingly positive event in international developments during the last few weeks, and that is the ending of confrontation and the chance of a new era in South-East Asia. I recently had the privilege of visiting Indonesia and talking to the new leaders there, and I have no doubt that they are genuine and honest when they say that they want to make a new start in their relationships with Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
I think that our Government have handled the situation with care. During the period of confrontation they were careful not to step up the fighting to the position where the Indonesians would find it impossible themselves to stop. Now that Jakarta is being reasonable, we have moved in quickly to meet their attitude with reason. I hope, however, that we shall not just allow the conditions in South-East Asia to cruise around. The situation in Indonesia could easily deteriorate if we do not, as the Prime Minister has promised, provide a massive reduction in troops in Sabah and Sarawak as the Indonesians withdraw their troops in Borneo.
We have to beware of a pan-Malay mood in both Indonesia and Malaysia which might find expression in a joint hostility towards the Chinese. In Indonesia today one sees the walls covered with anti-Chinese slogans. In Kuala Lumpur there is considerable bitterness about the Government in


Singapore. The danger is that the pan-Malay mood could so develop that they would join in a joint programme against the Chinese in South-East Asia. If an appeal were then made by a Chinese Government in Singapore for British troops to defend them, the United Kingdom would find itself in an impossible position.
I think that that position can be avoided. There are good reasons why Indonesia and Singapore should move closer together. They have a joint interest in the entrepôt trade. We now have the Indonesian economic mission here in the United Kingdom. If Britain can be understanding with Indonesia's economic problems, if we can work with them in education programmes, new scholarships and the like, we ourselves can have a firm friendship with Indonesia and encourage the friendship between Indonesia and Singapore. This will avoid the polarisation between Chinese and Malays in the area and our being put into a difficult military position.
One of the encouraging developments in Indonesia is its desire to be a full member of what would be a new political organisation in South-East Asia—the Asian States Association. This, interestingly enough, would bring in Thailand, which at the moment is very exposed in terms of a close relationship with the United States and in separation from the rest of the countries of the Indian subcontinent and South-East Asia. It would also include the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, building up the area in mutual interest and economic partnership into a large neutral bloc.
Only when we have) this kind of organisation there will it be safe for the United Kingdom to withdrawn in substantial measure its troops from Malaysia and Singapore. We can make the first action—withdrawal from Sabah and Sarawak—but the second depends on the building up of this neutral bloc. Here, there is a danger of the Vietnam situation interfering. We must be deeply depressed by the news that the French delegate has got nowhere in Hanoi. The reaction of China to India's proposals is also depressing. But, equally, it would be depressing if the United States, in all its difficulties, should contemplate a position of permanent military establish-

ment in South Vietnam as it does, in entirely different circumstances, in South Korea.
I believe that this would make it difficult for the Soviet Union to acknowledge the neutrality of this large South-East Asian bloc and impossible for us to make these necessary withdrawals. There is a direct relationship between the Vietnam situation and a settlement in South-East Asia. We should not, however, let this debate pass without recognising that, in an area involving 100 million people—an area which protects Australia—there has been a very definite improvement.
Secondly, I want to refer to Aden and the Gulf. I would not like to get involved in the argument about the validity or otherwise of treaty commitments because, validity or otherwise, we are faced with how we plan or help the future of Aden, the South Arabian Federation and the Gulf area. One starts with the basic difficulty of trying to create a country out of Aden and the Federal States. This is like trying to join twentieth century Glasgow with the seventeenth century Highlands of Scotland. That is the kind of difference there is in development.
It is a great pity that, in decades past, we have not done more to develop the Federal territories so that the gap between Aden and the hinterland would have been less. Nevertheless, we have the problem. I think that it would have been impossible for us to have Servicemen in the Aden area fulfilling a defence rôle for the simple reason that, when I was there last September, the Royal Sussex, the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry and the East Anglia Regiment in Aden were playing no defensive rôle but were merely concerned with defending their families and homes. In such a situation, when troops are not recognised for a defence rôle, but are thought to be an occupation force, we know that the time has come for them to leave.
However, there are possibilities—and I am throwing this out in a helpful way—for some connection with the United Nations in this area. There have been derisory remarks about the Arab world not being suitable for the United Nations, but, remembering the useful rôle of the United Nations in the Gaza Strip, a general comment of that nature does not apply.
We have had a nomination by U Thant of a Sudanese gentleman who is prepared to represent the United Nations in Aden. I wonder whether we could move further than this and get a larger team from the United Nations. I wonder whether we could get some dialogue with the present nationalist forces in Aden Colony. At the moment, they are being entirely uncooperative, but it is fair to say that they originally asked for elections under United Nations supervision. We now do not consider this to be so fundamentally wrong. If we could get contact with the possibility of building up a United Nations observer team, we might move on to a further possibility of considering the subject of independence for Aden with perhaps some combination of a United Nations service element in the first two years up to 1968—I am talking about the South Arabian Federation generally.
I do not want to draw the parallel too closely, but it is a fact that British troops in Cyprus serving as British troops in Cyprus were the object of very considerable violence, but when they were British troops in Cyprus serving as United Nations troops operating to keep apart the Turks and the Greek Cypriots, they were not unwelcome in any fashion. Perhaps we could consider the possibility of Pakistani and Sudanese units.
The danger, which I fear will not be solved simply by a British military presence, or departure by Britain, is that the place will be fought over by contending forces in the area. I do not believe that President Nasser has deliberate designs, in the physical sense of troops, for moving into Aden. I think that if he did he would not succeed, because I am sure that the Federal forces in the Federal territories, just as in the northern part of the Yemen the Royalists dealt with the Egyptians, would deal with any Egyptian attack against Aden.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to provide those Federal forces with weapons? If so, why does he not ask the Foreign Secretary to do so instead of keeping them from weapons as he has done?

Mr. Jackson: The Federal forces are to have an agreement whereby weapons will be available after 1968. As the hon.

Gentleman knows, having visited the area, we are engaged in a very extensive training programme of the Federal Army and the weapons will be made available after 1968. But the point remains that we will get nowhere by scoring points one way or another in this fashion. We have to solve the future of Aden and the South Arabian Federation in a way in which the area will not tear itself apart, and it seems to me that the U.N. has some rôle to play in that.
I want, finally, to refer to the Persian Gulf area, the Arabian Gulf area. There have already been remarks about the danger of a vacuum in the region and it is said that, if Britain withdraws, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia will make their claims and the Egyptian influence will make itself felt. However, we should recognise that, certainly by 1970, South Arabia will be an area where the British presence will not be predominant, even if there are military contingents still there. In that case, the searchlight of Arab nationalism will be switched on to the Gulf area whether we like it or not.
All I suggest today is that although progress has been made in the Trucial Oman States—reference has been made to their co-operation and trade schools are being established—within the realms of the Government's power we should try to accelerate that progress. I believe fundamentally that the union of this area with Saudi Arabia must come. Relations between Bahrein and Saudi Arabia are satisfactory, as are relations between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and geographically such a union makes sense.
We should accelerate our programme of training in the Gulf area so that when the time comes for the glare of Arab nationalism to reveal itself in the Gulf we shall be in a position to protect the Trucial Oman States, perhaps by some link with Saudi Arabia.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Walters: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) in detail, but I am grateful to him for having spoken briefly and thus enabled me to take part in the debate.
When discussing the Middle East and concentrating on our retreat from Aden and our obligations to the South Arabian


Federation—and I should be extremely interested to hear the Government's reply to the overwhelming case that has been made by my right hon. and hon. Friend which has not been dealt with at all satisfactorily so far from the Government benches—it is easy to disregard the great danger of the Arab-Israel confrontation.
Ten years without serious fighting suggests an analogy with the great power cold war, a comforting impression of stability which, I suggest, is entirely illusory. There is no official contact between the two sides, the declared policy of the Arab states is military victory, and the arms race is reaching a fairly critical stage.
While tactically there is a degree of restraint in the behaviour of the two sides, strategically their policies seem directed to the inevitability of a major clash. Israel can mobilise 250,000 men, and her immediate Arab neighbours about 350,000 to 400,000. Both have large quantities of sophisticated weapons—tanks, strike aircraft, tactical guided missiles, and so forth.
There is no sign that either side feels that it has enough material, that it is now secure and, therefore, can relax. On the contrary, the search for a decisive advantage continues, with the great Powers acting as suppliers. We should be anything but complacent about this situation, because if such a decisive advantage were gained, or even thought to be gained, by one side or the other, the temptation to make a pre-emptive strike would be very great It will be remembered that this was a prime Israeli consideration in 1956.
The current limit of qualitative advance in conventional weapons has nearly been reached. The next step would be into nuclear weaponry. Since only Israel has the potential for the production of such weapons and no one is likely to supply them to the Arab States, any move in this direction can hardly fail to upset radically the rough balance at the moment obtaining between the two sides. The mere suspicion that Israel was about to develop her own atom bomb would cause a most dangerous crisis.
Defence expenditure takes up an extraordinary and excessive proportion of the wealth of the Middle Eastern States; 9 per cent. of Egypt's gross national product, 10 per cent. of Israel's, 11 per cent.

of Syria's, and over 16 per cent. of Jordan's. We find 7 per cent. of our gross national product as a defence burden to be pretty intolerable. Yet these desperately poor countries spend a much higher proportion of their income. Indeed, Jordan spends a higher proportion of its national income unproductively on weapons of war than practically any other country in the world, with the exception of China. Quite apart from the social misery caused by this waste of resources in the Middle East, the increase of expenditure can almost reach a point at which war begins to look like the cheaper option.
We should be putting forward constructive and positive proposals for the stabilisation of the area. Here is an area in which the Government could be seeking initiatives in foreign policy. As a first step, for instance, nuclear guarantees should be given to both sides by the great Powers jointly. This could lead to general guarantees of the present frontiers, which would take the steam out of the arms race and eventually assist in making possible a political settlement. The alternative is the strong possibility of a new Middle East war, which would probably solve nothing and might involve all of us either as policemen or, considerably worse, as participants.
Having spoken about that aspect of the Middle East, which has not been referred to a great deal, but which I regard as important, I come now to the Far East, which was the subject of the debate on Thursday, and to Vietnam. The reason why we on this side of the House support the United States—a reason which cannot be emphasised often enough—in its recent action in bombing oil installations is that such action was justified.
We accept certain fundamental premises in connection with the Vietnam war. We accept that the United States is fighting in Vietnam to prevent the Communists from subjugating the South. We accept, moreover, that the Americans, Australians and New Zealanders are fighting indirectly also to contain Chinese Communist aggression in Asia. We consider, therefore, that the United States is involved in Vietnam in protecting the interests of countries intimately connected with ourselves and in containing Communist expansion.
Left-wing members of the Labour Party, as emerged clearly in the course of the debate, do not accept this basic premise. They are opposed to the United States presence in South Vietnam and are either not interested in containing Communist aggression or do not believe that such aggressive intention exists in the first place. Therefore, their attitude of violent opposition to the air raids and their abstention in the vote on Thursday are perfectly logical and justified. Their blind spot is in apparently constantly refusing to accept that the United States is willing to negotiate and willing to negotiate without conditions, while Hanoi is not.
The danger that the bombing raids will lead to an escalation of the war involving China has not been confirmed by events. In fact, these attacks and raids make escalation less likely, not more likely. A statement was issued from Peking this morning saying that the conflict in Vietnam is one for the Vietnamese people to win. I regard this as confirmation of what I have just said. The Chinese leadership is at the moment involved in a bitter conflict, and this show of American determination will, I believe, act as a deterrent to China, not as an incentive.
The grave warning which we had from China about the attacks on the Hanoi and Haiphong oil installations is probably the 400th grave warning issued by Peking, but it is interesting to note that, for all the ferocious language used, the conduct of China towards the United States has been relatively circumspect and restrained.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a moral issue, and that the Vietnamese people are fighting their own battle? This is not a matter for the Chinese at all. Many of us have realised this for a long time. This is a battle of the Vietnamese for Vietnam, North and South.

Mr. Walters: I know the hon. Lady's opinions and we also know that the Chinese have been offering massive aid to North Vietnam and the Vietcong. The important point is that active military intervention by China is made less likely by a clear demonstration of America's

determination to ensure that the Vietcong, with Chinese Communists help, cannot win the war.
This is the point that the Americans must establish. Once they do it is much more likely that the negotiations can come about. When it comes to trying to get revolutions on the cheap all round the world the Chinese have been very active. But when it comes to being faced with military confrontation, with America, less so: they must, however, be persuaded of American determination. It is this that America has been doing and it is for this reason that we logically support them.
It is not a question of giving the Americans a blank cheque—not that they are particularly interested in whether we do so or not. Nor is it a question whether they would abuse such a blank cheque. I do not think that they would. They have repeatedly manifested their reluctance to extend the war. There was a time when a British Government performed a very valuable function in restraining Mr. Dulles in some of his policies in South-East Asia. There is no evidence now that such a restraining influence is necessary today.
It is not a question of blindly supporting the United States, but of deliberately and reflectively supporting a particular action which, given the premise as to why the United States is fighting the war in Vietnam in the first place, is both logical and perfectly defensible. The attitude of the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) and some of her hon. Friends is also perfectly logical. The attitude which has not been logical has been that adopted by the Prime Minister in his dissociation from this particular American action. In an otherwise extremely lucid and able speech the Foreign Secretary put up a very inadequate show on that subject the other day.
I must now end, but before doing so I would just like to say that not for the first time the Prime Minister has found himself in an acrobatic position, and acrobatics of this kind, brought about for internal party reasons, are difficult to defend. They do not impress, but lower the influence of this country with our friends and allies and also with our opponents. When the Prime Minister goes to Washington, and tries to influence the President of the United States, he will


find that there is no posture which infuriates more than that of a wobbly friend.

8.58 p.m.

Lord Balniel: This two-day debate on foreign affairs has ranged over a whole series of controversial issues. We can begin by agreeing on two things. First, this has been a most interesting and worthwhile debate marked, especially in its earlier stages, by speeches of passion and sincerity on the immediate issues of Vietnam and marked also by speeches which have tried to assess the long-term movements and shifts of world affairs.
The debate has also been marked by two ma den speeches. First, that of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn), successor to Christopher Soames, who so frequently took such a prominent part in foreign affairs debates. If I may say so without being presumptious, I thought that the hon. Gentleman's speech on China was a model of the kind of maiden speech which this House enjoys, in that he spoke on a subject of which he has considerable and deep personal knowledge.
The second maiden speech which the House enjoyed was that of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard). I can only assume that the high quality of the hon. Gentleman's speech was due to his education at Cambridge. Having been a member of the Foreign Office, the hon. Gentleman spoke with considerable experience, and I am sure that the points which he made about the reconstruction of the United Nations and the possibility of developing a peace-keeping force will be considered most carefully by the Government.
I think, also, that there has been universal agreement that at the moment this country is faced with crucial problems which need urgent decisions and which will affect the well-being of our people for many years to come. Although there have been speeches on Vietnam, and the ultimate objectives of China's policy, this debate has concentrated basically on Europe and on the Middle East. Speaker after speaker has returned to the basic question: will Europe continue divided in two, with all the weaknesses in terms of politics, economics, and defence, which such a division means, or is the oppor-

tunity presenting itself for a widening of the community so as to include ourselves and our fellow countries in E.F.T.A. in one expanded community?
Will it, in the ultimate, provide the basis of a united Europe, including the Eastern European countries? Has the Prime Minister the will, or the vision, or the determination, to create an opportunity for this country's entry into the Community, or to seize the opportunity should it be presented to this country?
Another question which faces us in Europe is whether the reconsideration of N.A.T.O., which, in any event, was due to take place now, but which has been given additional urgency following the decision of France to withdraw, will result in a strengthening, or a weakening, of European defence.
Has the time come when, as a result of the changed attitude of the Soviet Union, we might soon reach out to try to secure a central European settlement? Or is it the case, as my right hon. Friend said, that the war in Vietnam is poisoning the whole international scene and making major relaxation of East-West tension an impossibility at the present time?
In another geographical area, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker), asked whether the precarious stability which has been built up in the Middle East over the last few years would be harmed and overthrown by the Government's decision to withdraw their influence from Southern Arabia.
I should like to deal, first, with the question of this country's relations with the E.E.C. The position of the Conservative Opposition has been declared in unequivocal terms. We believe that it is in the interests of Europe and of this country that we should seek to take the first favourable opportunity of becoming a member of the Community. Naturally, a number of considerations must be taken into account, and negotiations have to take place. I want to examine some of those considerations shortly, but before I do, I want to comment upon something which is almost intangible but is of crucial importance, namely, the question of Ministerial attitudes.
The view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is known throughout Europe. At a most difficult time—when the negotiations of 1963 had been halted by the action of France; when five of the six members of the Community were anxious to see the negotiations brought to fruition, and when months and even years of work had been halted—my right hon. Friend said:
We in Britain are not going to turn our backs on the mainland of Europe; or on the countries of the Community. We are part of Europe; by geography, tradition, history, culture and civilisation. We shall continue to work with all our friends in Europe for the true unity and strength of this continent.
No matter whom one talks to on the Continent of Europe one finds a clear understanding of the determination and the wish of the Conservative Party that Britain should enter the Community and play her part in building up the unity of Europe. The integrity and sense of purpose with which those negotiations were conducted created a deep impression in Europe.
The same impression has not been created by the Prime Minister. Subordinate Ministers—if I may use that term—when out of sight of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and outside the country, make the most positive speeches—the Foreign Secretary at Strasbourg, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Western European Union, and the First Secretary of State at Stockholm and Bergen—express the Government's desire that Britain should enter the Community. But the very willingness of the subordinate to speak in those positive terms is being increasingly contrasted with what I can only describe as the cagey reticence of the Prime Minister.
The basic speech of the Prime Minister—I believe that it was his last speech on the subject—was the one he delivered at Bristol, which he confirmed in this House on 5th May as representing the view of the Government. He knows that this speech is looked on both in this country and on the Continent of Europe as being thoroughly negative. In that speech he laid down conditions which he knows are incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. What is more, the whole language of the speech was in pejorative terms.
No one is asking him to go "cap in hand", to use his own words. No one is asking him to "go crawling into Europe", again to use his own words, which were repeated by the Minister of Agriculture only two days ago. Equally, the fulfilment or even the starting of negotiations will be impossible if the Prime Minister's sole contribution to this great debate is a negative one, with an emphasis of conditions which he knows are incompatible with the Treaty of Rome.
What we are entitled to have in this House, from the lips of the Prime Minister and not just from the lips of subordinate Ministers, is the statement that he has not only the political will but the determination to seek out an opportunity for this country to join the European Economic Community in building up European unity. He should make it clear that this is not only a long-term objective which we might perhaps drift into in a few years' time, but that it is a steady purpose and a prime objective of British foreign policy.
After all, there is a good deal of doubt about British intentions. This was expressed during only the last two or three days by the French Prime Minister. Indeed, on the very day that the Chancellor of the Duchy made his ringing declaration in the Western European Union of the intention of this country to enter the European Economic Community, a statement was issued signed by 80 back benchers, including the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which has been widely interpreted as a counterblast to the Government's steps in the direction of the Community.
If the Prime Minister made a clear statement, this would do much to remove the mistrust and doubt which are holding up advance and a new atmosphere would be created in which we could move on from the phase of sounding-out of general intentions—on to a new phase of consultations and negotiations. I accept, of course, that there is the problem of the French position, but my impression is that the time is now ripe, not, of course, for an application to join the Community, but for a move on from the sounding-out of general intentions into negotiations.
I am not suggesting negotiations at Foreign Secretary level, but a search at


a Ministerial level for a means of eliminating the differences between us and the Community. This should be started straight away, as it will take a long time. The Community itself is deeply occupied at the moment with the Kennedy Round, and with the amalgamation of the three organisations and with the fixing of all agricultural commodity prices with the exception of cereals.
It is also necessary to begin these negotiations as soon as possible because new problems have arisen since the last round of negotiations and indeed some have been crated by the Government. This time, there will be a great deal of discussion about the weak position of sterling and the whole structure of the sterling area is bound to be discussed. Of course, there will also be substantial negotiations about the Commonwealth problems and the transitional arrangements needed for agriculture. The First Secretary of State said in the House last week that he did not think that the time had yet been reached when he should explain to the House what the situation is.
But if we are to move on from sounding-out of general intentions, over the threshold into negotiations, the House is entitled to a clear explanation of the Government's attitude towards the agricultural policies of the Community. The First Secretary said on 9th June:
I believe that, over a period, we should arrange for an assimilation of our system with the Common Market high prices and high levy system and that it would not be impossible to make arrangements.
It is scarcely possible to square that with the statement of the Prime Minister. He said on 25th March, and confirmed his words on 5th May:
… and we shall go in if the conditions are right and those conditions require that we must be free to go on buying food and raw materials as we have for 100 years in the cheapest markets in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and other Commonwealth countries, and not have this trade wrecked by the levies the Tories are so keen to impose.
These are not levies which the Tories are imposing. These levies are the basic agricultural policy of the Community. These two statements by the Prime Minister and by the Minister responsible for our consultations with Europe, are completely incompatible and the House is

entitled at this stage to an explanation of where the Government stand.
Of course, an important position is occupied by France. One hoped that the outcome of the talks between M. Pompidou and the Prime Minister would be an improvement in our relationship with France. I am not quite sure that this happened. I think that there was a lack of preparation, and I am not sure that the differences between our two countries have been closed as a result of the talks. This is largely due to a lack of preparation and an unfavourable background to the talks. It is not only the incredibly unfortunate and maladroit remarks of the Secretary of State for Defence, for which he has quite rightly apologised to the House and to the French Embassy—

Mr. James Dempsey: Then why does not the hon. Member accept it and leave it at that?

Lord Balniel: I was accepting the apology. I was saying that it was not only caused by this incredibly unfortunate remark; the unfavourable background is caused by a whole sequence of events which has given an impression that in Anglo-French projects this country is only half-hearted in fulfilling her commitments.
There was the unilateral and unsuccessful attempt to withdraw from Concord. There was the unilateral and unsuccessful attempt to withdraw from E.L.D.O. It does not come as much surprise to hear that France herself is reconsidering the Anglo-French air-bus project or perhaps even reconsidering the Jaguar variable geometry aircraft. There is also the way in which Britain seems to have cast herself in the rôle of public prosecutor of France over her attitude towards N.A.T.O. Of course, there is real disagreement between us on some policies and we must make it unmistakably clear that we do believe in the United States' presence in Europe. We must make it unmistakably clear that we do believe in an integrated command in N.A.T.O.
Our concern also springs from the French belief that she can achieve her objective of a détente with the East better by acting in isolation than acting in unison with N.A.T.O. But the very fact that France is taking these initiatives in


isolation is to some extent because N.A.T.O. herself has not taken successfully positive steps to achieve a central European settlement.
The N.A.T.O. alliance has created a freedom from fear. It has created a freedom from fear of Soviet aggression. For the first time for many years people in Europe feel that the danger of their lands being fought over is a remote danger. That is the military achievement, but in political terms it seems as though France is acting alone in default of a positive foreign policy by the Western European Powers acting in unison. Our reaction must be not to recriminate or to exacerbate relations between our two countries, but to take the lead in creating an effective united Western European foreign policy aimed at obtaining ultimately a central European settlement.
Above everything else, it must be a basic objective of Government policy to create good relations with France. Our countries have much in common. I believe that young people who last week read of the remembrance ceremonies of the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of the Somme were deeply moved. They were deeply moved when they saw those pictures of the vast graveyards where British and French soldiers lie.
Our two countries have contributed to much to the political freedom and the culture and history of Europe. It must be a basic objective of our two countries—and in addressing my remarks to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, perhaps I may speak as one Scotsman to another—not so much to recreate the Entente Cordiale as to recreate the "Auld Alliance".

Mr. William Molloy: Is not the hon. Gentleman getting his argument completely confused? There is nothing to be proud about in those ghastly cemeteries which were the result of the last war. That is not culture; it is insanity. Surely, one of the ideals of the Common Market and of a greater European joining together of all the nations is that we will not indulge in such bouts of insanity and that the sooner we forget them the better.

Lord Balniel: I was trying to say that there were great bonds of friendship

between our two countries. One of the saddest things of recent years is the way in which there have been disagreements between these two countries, which can contribute so much together to the unity of Europe and without whose contribution the unity of Europe can never be built.

Mr. Molloy: I do not want anyone to contribute to it in graveyards.

Lord Balniel: One other geographical area to which I would like to refer, and which has been much discussed during this debate, is the Middle East and the situation in South Arabia. Here both the wisdom of the Government's actions and the honourable fulfilment of their obligations has been called in question.
We welcome the moves to independence in 1968, of the South Arabian Federation. We welcome, also, the decision of the Federal Government to hold a conference next August to which all the State Governments and all political groups have been invited, and to which a United Nations representative has also been invited. We hope that it will be able to construct an acceptable constitution which will give reality and stability to the Federation when it obtains independence.
But how will the Federation defend itself? The classic recipe for aggression is for a Power to withdraw, leaving behind it a power vacuum. Has not Egyptian policy been reversed from the very day when Britain declared, two years in advance, that she was withdrawing her forces from South Arabia? Is there not every indication that the 60,000 United Arab Republic troops at present in the Yemen will still be there in 1968? Is there not every sign that since the visit of Mr. Kosygin to Cairo, President Nasser's foreign policy will have the backing of the Soviet Union? Are not the troops of the United Arab Republic now in the Yemen backed by Mig fighters?
My understanding is that we had some profound and binding obligations to secure the safety of the area. There was, first of all, the Treaty of Friendship and Protection of 1959, in particular Article 3(1). I listened to the Foreign Secretary's explanation. If I understood him aright,


there was no longer a binding commitment, but his explanation did not completely dispel my doubts about Government policy.
That, however, is not the only document. There is also the Federation of South Arabia Conference Report of July, 1964, Cmnd. 2414. Paragraph 38 describes how the delegates from the Federation came and asked for independence in 1968. Linked to their request was another request that Britain should conclude
a Defence Agreement under which Britain would retain her military base in Aden for the defence of the Federation and the fulfilment of her world-wide responsibilities. The Secretary of State announced the agreement of the British Government to this request.
I can understand, although I would not agree with it, the Government saying that they are not bound by the undertakings of their predecessors, but we are led to believe—and I shall be only too glad to hear that we are mistaken—that after the conference was concluded the Federation delegates called on the then Leader of the Opposition—today, the Prime Minister—and he assured them that a Labour Government would honour the promise. We are informed—and I shall be only too glad to hear that it is not true—that the High Commissioner for Aden officially confirmed the assurance and, also, that the Colonial Secretary—the right hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood)—and the Secretary of State for Defence both confirmed this assurance.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to disillusion me, because last February the Federal Supreme Council asked the British Government to continue to defend the Federation against external aggression or internal subversion until such time as the Federation itself was able to do so. The Council was refused, and was bitterly shocked. It seems to me that the situation which the Government are creating in South Arabia contains all the temptations for which a potential aggressor could possibly ask.
Gifts of money, however generous, will not be able to provide the security which these people so desperately need. They cannot, in the short time available, possibly build up an air force that will be able to stand up to the kind of aircraft that are now operating in this part of the Middle East.
My final word to the right hon. Gentleman is to ask the Government to think again where wisdom and honour should lead them in their policies in South Arabia.

9.28 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): I should like to clear out of the way at once the point made by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) about our relations with France, especially over the subject of N.A.T.O. As I understood the noble Lord, he was accusing us of being what he called the "public prosecutor" in the case against France over N.A.T.O. I thought that these were singularly unfortunate words coming immediately after a most useful visit to this country by the French Prime Minister and the French Foreign Secretary.
I was all the more puzzled that they should be used because the noble Lord made it quite clear that the Opposition fully support us in our attitude on the need to maintain an integrated North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It was therefore very difficult to know why he should couple this with the charge of being anti-French. There is nothing anti-French in taking a certain point of view about the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, any more, than there is anything anti-British in anyone taking a view different from our own. I should like to get that matter out of the way at the very beginning.
I very much agree with the noble Lord that this has been a particularly good debate—a great deal quieter than its predecessor on Thursday, but none the worse for that. It has been distinguished by notable maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) and Oxford (Mr. Luard). My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford gave the House a quite fascinating eyewitness acount of development in China. It seems to me that one of the most frightening paradoxes of the world in which we live is that the most populous nation is that about which we have the least independent information. I know that the whole House looks forward to further opportunities of taking advantage of my hon. Friend's expert knowledge of China.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, in a very thoughtful and knowledgeable speech, spoke of the work of the United Nation's Peace-keeping Committee. It is fair to say that the existence of that Committee, and indeed the avoidance of the impasse in which the United Nations found itself last year, owes a very great deal to the work of my noble Friend Lord Caradon, our Permanent Representative at the United Nations.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary covered many subjects in his opening speech. Therefore, I should like to concentrate on the points which have been raised subsequently. A number of non. Members, including the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, spoke about the relations between Britain and the mainland of Europe, including the countries of the European Economic Community. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) chided us on this side of the House for being divided about Britain joining the Community. It rather spoilt the force of his argument that his speech followed immediately that of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who appeared to take a view which was very substantially different from that taken by the hon. and gallant Member.
The truth is that the question of British accession to the E.E.C. is as grave and great an issue as this country can face, and it is natural that there should be different views about it from both sides of the House. I therefore very much deplore the way in which this matter has been approached by some right hon. Members opposite. I very much deplored the character of the personal attack which the noble Lord the Member for Hertford made on the behaviour of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the kind of attack made by a number of hon. Members during the debate. I know that they resent the fact that they are continually out-debated by my right hon. Friend in the House. It is fair enough to attack him vigorously on domestic matters, but one has to be careful about attacking a Prime Minister on international matters. Certainly to attack my right hon. Friend in the way in which he was attacked by the hon. and gallant

Member for Lewes does a disservice to Britain.
Her Majesty's Government's position on the issue of British accession to the E.E.C. is perfectly plain and straightforward, but it is substantially different from that taken by the Opposition. As I understand it, the Opposition are prepared for what is virtually unconditional entry by Britain into the Common Market. Indeed, they go further. It is a fair description of their policy to say that they are prepared unilaterally to alter some substantial features of British domestic policy to make it easier to go into the E.E.C. before they have any assurance that the right terms are obtainable.
We on this side take the view that there would be many advantages for Britain, for Europe and for the world by widening the E.E.C. by British membership and membership of other countries. But we feel that it is a reasonable and indeed a responsible view for the British Government to take that that kind of accession is possible only if certain essential interests are safeguarded.
This is not simply a British view which, as the noble Lord the Member for Hertford appeared to argue, isolates us and makes it more difficult for us to be members. He may have noticed that only yesterday Herr Schmücker, Federal German Minister for Economics, said in Bonn that the Federal German Government appreciate that there are certain interests which Britain could not renounce if and when she joined the Common Market. Indeed, he said that his Government not only respected Britain's Commonwealth ties, but regarded them as necessary and considered that they should be maintained. This is the kind of approach which the First Secretary and I have been making in our travels to various countries in Europe to explore the possibility of getting the right terms for British accession to the Community.
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) asked me if I could give some information on the latest position relating to the offset agreement with Germany. As the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last year negotiated a protocol to the current Anglo-German offset agreement under which the operation of the


agreement was extended to 31st March, 1967, and the Federal German Government undertook to ensure that offset payments across the exchanges amounting to approximately £54 million would be made in the financial year 1966–67. This was a considerable improvement on the agreement as originally negotiated, and we have confidence in the strenuous efforts which the Federal Government have made and are making to achieve this figure. But even if, as we hope and expect, the figure is reached, it will meet rather less than two-thirds of the actual foreign exchange costs of our troops in Germany.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on 3rd May that it was the Government's intention to start negotiations at an early date with a view to the United Kingdom securing relief from the whole of the foreign exchange cost of keeping our forces in Germany. As the House knows, during the recent visit of the German Chancellor, Dr. Erhard, it was agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his opposite number, the German Minister of Finance, should have an early meeting on these matters. The German Minister of Finance came to this country a few days ago. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is hoping to visit Bonn on 21st July. The two Ministers of Finance are charged with examining all the various methods by which this problem might be satisfactorily resolved. These discussions are still in mid-passage, and I cannot give the House at this stage any further details about them.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised the position in Southern Arabia and have made some very serious charges against the policy being pursued by Her Majesty's Government. I would like to take a few minutes in dealing with the facts of the matter. It has been suggested, both by the Opposition Front Bench and by a number of hon. Members on the Opposition back benches, that the decision to withdraw completely from South Arabia when the country became independent is a repudiation of a commitment entered into by the British Government at the Constitutional Conference held in London in July 1964.
This is a view that can neither be accepted nor sustained. Paragraph 38 of the Report of the 1964 Conference, to which attention has been drawn and which has been quoted in the House today, is the paragraph that refers to this. No reasonable person could regard this paragraph as an obligation of the character of one enshrined in a treaty which would be binding on a successor Government. The undertaking given was to do no more than to convene a conference which would have considered, among other things, the conclusion of a defence agreement with South Arabia at independence.
Two conferences were in fact contemplated. The first of these would have been to settle the details of the constitutional arrangements on the future status of Aden State. The second conference was the one to which I have referred, to fix the date of South Arabia's independence and to conclude a defence agreement under which Britain would retain her military base.
There was clearly an assumption by the then Government, our predecessors, that the elected representatives of Aden State, who were present at the 1964 Conference, would remain agreeable to the maintenance of a British base and of British forces in Aden after independence; but, as the House knows, much has changed in the Middle East since that arrangement was entered into.
When the present Government took office, we tried again and again and again to bring about the first of the two conferences, which was the undertaking which had been entered into by the previous Government; but, despite all these efforts, the local leaders in Aden still declined to come to a constitutional conference. Although the Federal Ministers themselves were willing to co-operate, all the other delegations at the working party that met here in London insisted that no progress could be made. An important element in these difficulties was the demand for the immediate evacuation of the base which, after all, is situated on Aden State territory within the Federation. The Government's position here is perfectly plain and honourable. The Prime Minister, speaking in the debate on Commonwealth and colonial affairs on 1st June last year, said:
… no base is militarily or morally defensible unless it has the support of the people of


the territory on which it is sited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 1642.]
That has been the position of this party while in opposition and in Government.
The Defence Review has shown that the overseas interests of this country can now be maintained without a military base in Aden. It is not the policy of the present Government—I am now dealing with a question asked by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker)—any more than it was of our predecessors, to conclude defence agreements with a dependent territory on attaining its independence, unless there is a need to ensure the use of military facilities in such a country. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there was a conflict here. There is no conflict at all. Many countries became independent under the previous Conservative Government. There is, therefore, no obligation such as would bind a successive Government. Many local people, to put-it at its mildest, do not want a base in Aden and the United Kingdom feel that their own interests do not require a base there.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman name any other territory which asked for an agreement of this sort which has been denied by any British Government since the war?

Mr. Thomson: Basutoland, for example; they have been told that we cannot enter into defence arrangements with that country. However, I presume the hon. Gentleman is asking about cases in the past, and offhand I cannot recollect any. But that is hardly the point. The point is that the previous Government, in giving independence, never made any suggestion of entering voluntarily into defence arrangements where there was no need for British military facilities, as there was in the case of Malaya and Singapore. Yet so hypnotised are Her Majesty's Opposition by the unofficial Leader of the Opposition, who is absent abroad tonight, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), that they seem to insist on advocating policies that could only lead to the federal rulers in Southern Arabia having to rely on British troops to keep law and order in their own country. I understand the feelings of the federal rulers in this matter. I

know them personally and I have a great personal respect for them. I deplore the bad advice in the present circumstances that the party opposite is giving to them in their conversations with them.

Viscount Lambton: rose—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of information—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must decide to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Thomson: I am giving way to the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton).

Viscount Lambton: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clear up a point which is obscure. Is it or is it not a fact that in the defence agreement made between the countries in 1964, Article 9 said that the treaty of defence could be broken only by mutual agreement? Is it or is not the case? If the Aden Government decline to agree to breaking the treaty, will they retain the defence agreement with Aden?

Mr. Thomson: The case is as I have described it. The agreement was entered into by the previous Government in 1964 to hold a conference about these matters. The conference has never taken place, due to no fault of the present Government, and in those circumstances the charges that have been made freely today cannot possibly be sustained.

Mr. Maudling: Is it not a fact that the substance of the matter is that the Federation was asking not for a conference but for defence? It was clear in 1964 that we accepted this request for defence assistance after independence. Is it not further the fact that similar undertakings were given by the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, and by Ministers in the present Government subsequently? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that?

Mr. Thomson: confirm the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. But the arrangements are as stated in paragraph 38 which I have quoted. They are not in dispute. It was a conditional agreement, the condition being that a conference would be held and arrangements made, but the conference has never been held. There


have been no assurances given by this Government that have been broken. I think that the wise advice that ought to be given to the present Federal Government of Southern Arabia is that they should rely on the kind of military help that we have undertaken to give them during the period that lies immediately ahead. We shall, of course, give every possible assistance to ensure, as every British Government has always sought to do in territories to which have been granted independence, that a stable, viable administration is left behind.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has uttered important words as I heard them. He said "the kind of military help" that the Government have said they would give to Southern Arabia. But they have said that they will not give any military help. All that they have said is that they would give some money, but no money towards providing an air force, which is necessary for Southern Arabia to defend itself against Egyptian attack.

Mr. Thomson: I am not quite sure to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring. There may be a misunderstanding here. We have offered up to £5½ million towards the capital cost and £2½ million annually towards the expansion of the Federal armed forces, and this is in addition to our present help towards the armed forces of £7½ a year. Whatever one's views on that may be, I do not think that one can hold other than the view that this is generous help.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has given way sufficiently.

Mr. Thomson: The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes in the course of his speech attacked the Government and, as I mentioned, attacked the Prime Minister personally for showing a lack of principle in foreign affairs. Hon. Members opposite will, therefore, excuse me if I use fairly strong language in reply. I can only say that I thought it was pretty thick that an hon. and gallant Member of this House of long standing, a leading member of the Conservative Foreign Affairs Committee over many years and one who has been associated with the Suez policies of the Conservative Government in years gone by, should have

dared to use such language as that in the House today. If one is talking about the moral credit of British Governments, I would draw the attention of the House to the response that we have received from the international community in our handling of the Rhodesian crisis and over the imposition of sanctions on the illegal régime in Rhodesia. We have had the wholehearted backing of the international community as a whole there. That is a sign of the standing that the Government enjoy in the eyes of the international community, which is in very sharp contrast to what has happened within the recent memory of many hon. Members.
I should like to respond to the challenge of the hon. and gallant Member and of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and say a few words about the basic principles on which the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government is conducted. I take as a starting point the proposition that foreign policy must concern itself not with postures but with results. This seems to me to be the fundamental morality in relation to foreign affairs, not to be preoccupied with the striking of a certain attitude on behalf of a country in international relations but to face up to using the power of the nation to make practical progress towards peace. A nation, it seems to me, is very much like the man in the parable of the talents in the Bible. It is very tempting in our rather terrifying world to wrap up one's principles and keep them in cleanliness and purity and away from the dust and dirt and blood and tears of the international arena. But it is as immoral for a nation to seek to do this as it is for an individual.
As I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford remark in a speech in another place the other day, it is very nice to feel clean and pure but it is not much consolation if at the same time you are impotent. How can a country like Britain use whatever power its economic resources can give it to make progress for peace? Striking the right attitude in foreign affairs is very easy. It depends only on oneself and not on anybody else. But obtaining results is extremely difficult because it depends on discussions and compromise with other independent states, many of which do not share our views of world problems. First and foremost


we seek, as matters of principle, to give our backing to the United Nations—and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford made the speech he did on this aspect.
Britain may no longer be among the super Powers in the world, but she still has influence. Our example is still important. We try constantly to seek ways in which to enhance the authority of the United Nations. In doing so, we believe that we encourage other like-minded countries to seek to do the same. For example, this autumn, at the General Assembly, we shall once again launch our initiative for serious studies of new ideas for the peaceful settlement of disputes. This may be undramatic and unspectacular, but it is more likely to make more progress along the road to world order and peace. Perhaps it will be slower than some of the more exciting and exotic short-cuts so often presented to us and which often lead to cul-de-sacs, but it will certainly be more sure.
While seeking the long-term goal of a disarmed world through the United Nations, we believe that the best results from our limited power come from being ready to participate, by pooling our power, in systems of collective security against aggression. That is the best way to preserving peaceful equilibrium. That is why we have backed the need to maintain an integrated N.A.T.O. organisation while stepping up positive efforts for closer East-West relations. But neither N.A.T.O. nor improved East-West relations are enough. Indeed, they are endangered so long as there is a threat of war in other parts of the world.
We believe, in the rather hackneyed words of Mr. Litvinov, that peace is indivisible. They are words we are inclined to forget these days. It is for this reason—and here I come to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East—that we seek to play a positive part within our economic resources in keeping the peace outside Europe.
That is why we have decided that the right course is to maintain and increase our military presence in the Gulf at the time we are withdrawing the base from Aden. This is not from any latter-day illusions about imperial grandeur nor for reasons of oil but in order to maintain

stability in the area where, if we withdraw our presence suddenly, a dangerous vacuum would be created.
It follows from these propositions that collective security and a balance of forces are best kept in the world by the association of American power with that of Western Europe and other non-Communist nations. That does not mean blanket approval of American policy, as we have shown over the latest developments in Vietnam, nor that countries in alliance with the United States in any part of the world are satellites. Interdependence is an utterly different concept from subservience.
American policies, like those of ours and other free societies, are the result of many conflicting pressures. We should continually remind ourselves that America has the same kind of society as we have, with the same love of freedom and the same determination to resist aggression. Since the war, the United States has used her immense power, as my right hon. Friend reminded us, in some of the most generous acts of economic co-operation the world has ever known.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Oh.

Mr. Thomson: Nobody who took part in the meeting of N.A.T.O. in Brussels recently—and I only wish that I had had my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) with me there—could have described it as a gathering of satellites. If we apply my test of obtaining results for peace, the alliance with the United States allows less powerful nations to influence, in some degree, America's use of her own vast power. It also discourages those forces in the United States which would like to see American withdrawal to some form of neo-isolationism. These are the first two principles.
The third principle is that we do not believe in seeking this balance of forces which I have been describing simply in order to preserve the status quo. We believe in trying to maintain a balance of forces in order to preserve peace. We believe that stability ought to be used to promote peaceful change, a theme which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary never tires of putting before the House and other audiences whenever he has the opportunity.
We use all our power and all our influence, so far as our limited economic resources allow, to mount one of the most imaginative and one of the best planned economic aid programmes in the world. We use our influence and our power to promote peaceful change, not only in the developing world, but in Europe, not only in Western Europe—because this is what lies behind our desire to obtain accession to the European Economic Community—but in seeking changes to a Europe of greatly eased international tensions.
These are the principles on which the Government base their foreign policy. I know that the expression of them has aroused some dissent from some hon. Members in some parts of the House. I recognise that all of my hon. Friends who disagree with the current expression of British foreign policy do so out of deep conviction, but should like to say that in the party to which I belong there have been two main trends in thinking about foreign affairs—the pacifist tradition and the collective security tradition. It is the latter tradition which has always been the dominating tradition in my own party and the principles which I have enunciated—enhancing the authority of world organisation, whether the League of Nations in the past, or the United Nations today, of supporting collective security and of recognising the indivisibility of peace and preferring present American involvement in world affairs to the former American isolation and seeking to use peace in order to promote change—are all principles which were made familiar to public opinion in this country by the party to which I have the honour to belong. They were advocated in the House at a time when the Conservative Government of the day repudiated them and allowed us to drift into war.
What we have been discussing over the two days of this foreign affairs debate has been the issues of peace and war. We live in an unprecedented world situation where, for the first time, mankind has the means, if it allows itself to use them, to destroy itself. It is inevitable that there should be sincerely held differences of opinion, therefore, about how best to face up to the issues in that kind of situation. The principles which I have enumerated are not only wholly within the foreign policy tradition of my party, but, I believe, are widely accepted by the vast majority

of hon. Members on both sides of the House. They seem to me to be the principles upon which Britain, in all the changing circumstances in which she finds herself and with all her relatively less power in world affairs, can still go ahead and make a painstaking but practical contribution to the building of a world of peaceful change.
That is what underlies all our policies, whether they be in Europe, or whether they be further afield. They are policies in which Britain can make a unique and notable contribution to creating a world of order and of law.

9.58 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The speech to which we have just listened became at one moment biblical. The biblical passage of which it reminded me most was:
… then art … neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Whether it be in Vietnam in our relations with the United States, or whether it be in Europe with Government policy over the Common Market, it is impossible for any of us to determine what the Government really want to do. This is a time, if ever there was one, for greatness, for Britain's voice to be loud and clear in the world. Today's debate has shown how totally inadequate the Government are to fulfil that rôle.
Never in the whole of my experience of the House, lasting over 20 years, have I ever heard a more inadequate speech than that which we have just heard. The Government seem completely to have lost grip of every single matter of real moment. All they are prepared to do is to finish up in what ought to have been a very important speech with a lot of international liberal platitudes presumably devised by a civil servant in the Foreign Office.

Mr. George Lawson (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.1 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Bill which, I hope and believe, will commend itself to the whole House. It implements the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Court of Criminal Appeal, under Lord Donovan, which was appointed under the Administration of the party opposite by the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Dilhorne, and the then Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke. I feel sure that the House will wish me to pay tribute to Lord Donovan and his colleagues for the excellence of their Report and for the speed with which it was produced.
The Court of Criminal Appeal was set up by the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. When it was established, the prophets of woe, who are always to be found when a measure of legal reform is contemplated, expressed fears that there would be an excess of appeals, that the court might have to work night and day throughout the year, that the costs would be very high, and that juries would convict too readily, relying on the court to adjust their decisions. The last, in the light of experience, is a very odd fear.
In fact, all these fears proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, although the court has grappled admirably with its task over the years, and made many significant contributions to the criminal law, like all human institutions it has proved not to be perfect. The main criticism has been that the Court of Criminal Appeal has lacked the status of what is called a real court of appeal, because, apart from the Lord Chief Justice, it is manned by Queen's Bench judges who sit in judgment on the work of their brother judges but have no higher status. The Court of Appeal, on the other hand, is staffed by lords justices who are of superior status to the judges from whom the appeals come.
In addition, certain powers and procedures of the court have come under

criticism over the years. New problems have been raised as the pressure upon the court has grown more and more severe with the rising volume of crime and prosecutions. The Committee's Report shows that between 1956 and 1963 the number of applications for leave to appeal more than doubled, and the number of appeals increased nearly threefold from 163 to 430. It was in these circumstances that it was thought desirable to have a thorough review of the status and functions of the court, and accordingly the Donovan Committee was appointed in February, 1964.
The Committee's analysis of the criticisms made of the constitution of the court and of alternative arrangements that were canvassed is fully set out in Chapter 2 of the Report, and I shall not trouble the House with it now. But it is noteworthy that no lay witness came forward to make any complaint about the court, and that the suggestion of a new constitution came entirely from the legal profession. I hope that I have not given it the kiss of death by saying that.
The Committee did not consider that the criticism of the status of the court would alone justify a change, but it was impressed by the difficulty that with the many other calls on the Queen's Bench judges the composition of the court was constantly changing. This resultant lack of continuity could, and very occasionally did, lead to inconsistent decisions being reached by different divisions of the court, and the Committee thought that some change was necessary to enable the court to cope with the increasing volume of work while following a consistent policy.
The Committee's proposal, which is implemented by Clause 1, is that the Court of Criminal Appeal should be abolished and its powers transferred to the Court of Appeal. That court will then have a civil division and a criminal division. To cope with the volume of work, the criminal division will normally comprise two courts and, when necessary, three.
As the Lord Chief Justice pointed out recently, appeals are at present coming in faster than they can be dealt with, and the situation is urgent and fairly critical. The Donovan Committee recommended


that the first court, which would hear appeals, should consist of the Lord Chief Justice, a lord justice, and a puisne judge. The second court and, as necessary, a third court, would principally hear applications for leave to appeal, and these courts would be presided over by a lord justice and would include two puisne judges.
The Bill does not make any express provision for this, but some such arrangement will probably be adopted in practice. It is not intended that any formal distinction should be made between the functions of the two courts. Each will have jurisdiction to deal with appeals and applications for leave, and the channelling of the more substantial cases to the first court will be left to administrative arrangements.
The Donovan Committee thought it very desirable to retain puisne judges as members of the court so as to keep the Appeal Court closely in touch with the state of crime and give it the benefit of the experience which those judges are continually acquiring in the trial of crime and in the sentencing of offenders. With this conclusion the Government agree.
In any event, the lords justices by themselves could not possibly dispose of the whole volume of criminal appeal business without a very large increase in their number. However, although an important element of the Queen's Bench Division is thus retained in the new arrangements, the proposals go a long way to meet the views of those who think that the judicial standing of the Court of Criminal Appeal should be raised. After all, criminal appeals, where a man's liberty is at stake, are certainly not less important than civil apeals, which are mainly about money.
Clause 1 contains a number of detailed and technical provisions also which are made necessary by the proposed change of jurisdiction.
Clause 2 deals with the sittings and practice of the court. It is surprising to find that a trial judge can, under the present law, actually sit on an appeal from his own decision. In practice, this hardly ever happens, but the Government think it better that the rule should be made formally absolute, and accord-

ingly the Clause debars a judge who has presided over a trial from sitting on an appeal or an application for leave to appeal from a prisoner convicted at that trial.
Clause 3 makes necessary changes in the administrative arrangements which support the court. Its general effect is to transfer the office of Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal to the Court of Appeal. One change the Clause makes which may be of interest to the House is that solicitors as well as barristers will in future be eligible for the senior posts in the Criminal Appeal Office. The Donovan Committee suggested that consideration should be given to this proposal, and the Government agree that it should be implemented.
Clause 4 is an important Clause, extending the grounds on which an appeal against conviction is to be allowed. The present grounds are set out in the well-known Section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, which reads as follows:
The Court of Criminal Appeal on any such appeal against conviction shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, or that the judgment of the court before whom the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision of any question of law or that on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice, and in any other case shall dismiss the appeal;'
Then follows the famous proviso:
Provided that the court may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.
The Donovan Committee carefully discussed the question whether the court is or should be debarred from interfering with a jury's verdict because there was some evidence to support it and because it could not, therefore, be described as unreasonable. In particular, it was concerned and worried about the fact that the terms of the subsection that I have read, if strictly construed, gave virtually no protection to the innocent person who had been wrongly identified and convicted, provided that the evidence of identification was, on the face of it, credible. It recognised that in particular cases the court had, in practice and in fact, carried on allowing appeals on


grounds which implied that it thought after considering the weight of the evidence that the jury's verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.
But the Committee thought that any doubt should be removed by putting those words, "unsafe or unsatisfactory" into the law. The Bill adopts this proposal and will give the court an express power to allow an appeal where, under all the circumstances of the case, it comes to the conclusion that the verdict is "unsafe or unsatisfactory".
Clause 4 also deletes the word "substantial" from the proviso. This is because the Committee says that the word was devoid of any practical significance. Under that proviso the court may at present dismiss an appeal even though one of the grounds for allowing an appeal is established if it thinks that:
… no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.
The Clause also makes a change in the immediately preceding words of Section 4(1) of the 1907 Act to take the new form of the proviso. This last change was not recommended by the Donovan Committee, but is a necessary consequence of deleting the word "substantial" from the proviso. One of the reasons for which, as the law stands, the court must allow an appeal against conviction, unless it applies the proviso, is if it thinks that on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice. If nothing more was done than to delete "substantial" from the proviso the subsection would have the nonsensical effect that the court was to allow the appeal if satisfied that on any ground there had been a miscarriage of justice but might dismiss it if satisfied that there had not been a miscarriage of justice.
The Bill proposes to place the words:
on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice
by words which are considered to have the same effect, that is:
there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial".
The subsection, in its amended form, is intended to preserve the distinction, recognised by the Court of Criminal Appeal, in operating the subsection as it stands, that is to say, that although there may have been an irregularity during the

trial, it may apply the proviso and dismiss the appeal if the court is satisfied that a reasonable jury, properly directed, could not have done other than convict.
Another important change made by the courts is that by Section 2(2) the power to increase sentence on appeal against sentence is removed. The Committee reached the conclusion that this power, which, after all, can only be exercised when the prisoner has himself appealed in the belief that his sentence is too heavy, had such undesirable features that its retention could not be justified by the very few cases each year when an adequate sentence is substituted for an obviously inadequate one. The House may like to know that during the 10 years from 1955 to 1965, on average only three sentences a year were, in fact, increased. The Committee's views, with which I agree, and which I do not think I need repeat, are set out clearly in paragraphs 185 to 206 of its Report.
Clause 5 deals with computation of sentence, and is of great importance to an appellant. It deals with a subject about which I am sure many hon. Members will have had letters from constituents from time to time. It provides that the time during which an appellant is in custody pending the determination of his appeal shall be reckoned as part of his sentence unless the court gives a specific direction to the contrary. This is already the position in Scotland, and it does not seem to have had any particularly disastrous consequences in that part of Britain which, curiously enough, so often has given a lead in these matters in the past, and I say that without enthusiasm, coming as I do from the Principality. However, that is the position in Scotland at the moment.
The present law is that the time spent awaiting trial does not count as part of the sentence, unless the court makes an order that it should count, and in practice, as the Committee found, time tends to be lost more or less automatically, and not merely where the appeal is obviously frivolous. An unsuccessful applicant as a result may serve up to 63 days more in prison than he would have done had he not appealed at all.
The Committee receive many criticisms of the present rule, on the ground that in principle it is unjust, and in practice


arbitrary. The Committee thought that it could only be defended as a barrier against a potential flood of hopeless appeals, and it recommended that, if only as an experiment, the practice should be changed. Moreover, at one time there was a considerable difference between the prison conditions of those who were actually serving their sentences and those who had given notice of appeal. With the general improvement of conditions in prisons, this consideration has now lost its force. I should, however, remind the House that the court will retain power to penalise an appellant where the appeal is totally devoid of merit.
Clause 6 does not stem from the Donovan Report. It deals with recording of criminal proceedings, and implements a recommendation in the interim report of a committee on the mechanical recording of court proceedings which was set up in 1964 under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Baker.
There is clearly a possibility that in due course we may wish to make greater use of mechanical recording in the place of shorthand notes. Taking shorthand notes of court proceedings is a very skilled occupation, and we are very much in the debt of the court shorthand writers who have given, and indeed are giving, excellent service to the courts. But it is not easy—indeed, it is becoming harder—to recruit a sufficient number of these highly skilled experts, and there is a strong case for experimenting with other forms of recording.
Among other things, there would obviously be a saving in time if trans-scripts could be satisfactorily typed from a tape, though this is likely to require a high degree of skill, and I cannot say whether or to what extent mechanical recording will prove practicable. Mechanical recorders are, in fact, already being used on an experimental basis in the Law Courts and it would obviously, as the Baker Committee has suggested in its interim report, be desirable to extend this experiment to criminal courts.
To do so would require an amendment of the law, and this is done by Clause 6, under which it will be permissible to record criminal proceedings by way of shorthand notes or mechanically, or in any other way possible by means of some

perhaps so-far undiscovered invention. The Clause also provides for supplying the transcripts of criminal trials.
I will deal briefly with the remaining Clauses. Clause 7 makes a minor amendment of the law relating to the expenses of persons attending court to give evidence. Clause 8 and Schedule 1 bring the Courts-Martial Appeal Court into line with the new constitution and powers of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. Clause 9 provides for consequential and minor Amendments and repeals; Clause 10 relates to the power of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland and Clause 11 provides that the Bill shall come into force on an appointed day, and enables different days to be appointed for different parts.
I should also mention Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, which extends the time limit for giving notice of appeal, or of an application for leave to appeal, to 28 days. The shortness of the present limit of ten days has been widely criticised.
I submit that the Bill brings about a very important improvement in the machinery of criminal justice, and I commend it to the House.

10.21 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: My hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for explaining so fully what it is intended to do. We are glad to have this fruit of the labours of the Donovan Committee, appointed in February, 1964, by my noble Friend Lord Dilhorne and the then Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was. It is yet another example of the present Government—who have now been in office for two years—having in its law reform locker only the fruits of the labours put in hand by the previous Conservative Government.
We remember with a rather wry smile the promises of the Prime Minister in May, 1964, that all their law reform measures would be carried out in the first three months in office, while they prepared their major policy measures with the Parliamentary draftsmen. We know that they have only just produced the Steel Bill. They have not produced any law reform measures except what we left behind. All that their promises seem


to be founded on in reality are the promises of the Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Company. It is only the credit balance which we left which has enabled them to implement some small measure of law reform.
I join with the Attorney-General in expressing the thanks of the House to Lord Donovan and all the members of his Committee for the admirable work they have done. They have greatly eased the labour of the House, because a reading through of the Report shows what the problem is. They have identified the problem, and the Bill is the result of adopting their recommendations.
This is one of the Bills that one would have hoped would get away from the deplorable practice of legislation by reference. A Bill that is more difficult to read without having all the old statutes in front of one is difficult to imagine. We know the considerable enthusiasm of the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General to codify and clarify the law and make it comprehensible, so that the ordinary citizen can pick up the Bill and see what it is about. With this Bill it is necessary to refer to two previous statutes to see what it is about.
Those who have studied debates in another place will discover that there has been some correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Viscount Colville of Culross, and we would like to know why the Bill has had to be produced in this form of legislation by reference. We know the difficulties, but I hope that there will be some explanation why the Bill could not have been framed in a codified and clarified way, so that the ordinary citizen could read it and understand it.
I do not regard the Bill as a really dramatic and radical change in our criminal procedure. I accept that the Court of Criminal Appeal probably should have a higher status and, as a result of this Bill, we are told that, instead of the Lord Chief Justice and two judges of the Queen's Bench Division sitting on criminal appeals, the Lord Chief Justice, one Lord Justice of Appeal and one judge of the Queen's Bench Division will sit to hear criminal appeals.
The total result, therefore, of this effort will be to substitute one lord justice for

one Queen's Bench judge and put it all under the umbrella of the Court of Appeal, instead of the Divisional Court or its equivalent. I am sure that that is an improvement—I would not criticise it; it might well have some advantages—but I cannot think that it is likely to lead to a tremendous and dramatic change in the way in which criminal appeals are handled.
The Attorney-General told us—what we all know—that the number of appeals has created a critical situation for the judiciary, who have the heavy burden of deciding and considering criminal appeals. I should like to ask the Attorney-General—I do not know whether he is able to tell us this evening—how he sees the improvement in this critical position in the autumn when the Bill, we hope, will be operating. How many new lords justices will be appointed and will the lord justice who usually sits with the Lord Chief Justice be fairly permanently in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, or will the lord justice be changed round?
This is important, because I have always felt that no single human individual is capable of spending all his life considering the criminality of his fellow citizens and that every judge requires a little refreshment considering either divorce or civil cases or both, as well as crime. I hope that we shall not have a permanent lord justice who becomes, as it were, the Old Bailey representative in the Court of Appeal, but that there will be a change occasionally of the lord justice dealing with crime.
I hope that we will also be told how large an increase there will be in the staff of the Registrar, of what nature it will be and how rapidly and to what extent the speed-up will take place. I am sure that we all realise that it is urgent. We on this side are anxious that the Bill should get through Parliament before the Summer Recess, so that it may be available for the machinery to be operated by the time the courts open next October.
There is only one substantial point still at issue between the two sides of the House and it is a very small one. We think that it is probably a good thing to retain the power to increase sentences when a man has appealed against his sentence. Although I understand the


statistical argument that it is a power which is very seldom used, that is not an argument against a power. Powers which are seldom used are often very useful because they are there in reserve. There are occasions when impudent appeals against sentence are brought, and it is right that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal should do what it can to make the sentences as equitable, between man and man, as is possible.
I realise that the opportunities may be limited, but there is nothing unjust in saying that a man who has got off too lightly and has to that extent been treated' inequitably compared with his fellow convict who has been given a proper sentence, should have his sentence increased by the Court of Appeal, if he takes a chance or has the impudence or stupidity to appeal against a sentence which is very much too light. It is a very small point, to which we should like to return in Committee. I hope: hat, when we do, we shall have more than a quarter of an hour this Friday afternoon, because that would be inadequate.
The only other matter which I would raise with the Attorney-General concerns Clause 6 and the interesting development in using recording machines in criminal proceedings. Of course, the oddity is that we are legislating in a criminal appeal Bill for what is really the mechanistics of trial, in the first instance. While this might just be within the scope of the Bill it is rather an odd way of doing it and not a very convenient way of considering the implications for a criminal trial of mechanical recording.
There is a drafting point in the Bill which surprises me, and that is that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and the Home Secretary are apparently to be provided only with a transcript of the mechanically recorded tape. I cannot imagine why they should not have the advantage, if they wish, of listening to the tape itself and why the Home Secretary should not be allowed to send for the tape if he wishes to hear it. We shall put down an Amendment on this point.
By this Clause we are simply transferring to the Rules Committee the mechanics for modernising the recording of criminal proceedings and we are not

taking any responsibility in this House. I realise the administrative and legislative convenience from the Government's point of view of doing this, but it is a matter to which we should pay attention and one which will be of great interest not only to practitioners but to accused persons in the course of their trials hereafter.
There are some points which we want to raise in Committee, but, subject to them, we welcome the Bill. We are glad that the Government have implemented the Donovan Report. We hope that the new machine will be in operation by the opening of the law term next October and that it will do something to speed up the critical situation which exists in the hearing of criminal appeals.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I do not intend to keep the House for more than a few moments on a Bill which I warmly welcome, but I wonder whether the Attorney-General, or whoever is to reply, would be a little more definite about the problem of the current delay in appeals and how far it is expected that this reorganisation will help to expedite the hearing of appeals.
In view of the way in which the Registrar's department of the court is always so helpful and forthcoming to counsel, it may seem churlish to underline the current difficulties, but I emphasise that far from being a criticism of the court, which I am sure is as anxious as anyone to deal with this problem, it is a reflection of the enormous increase in its work. The enormous increase in the number of appeals is shown quite unmistakably by the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee, in the table on page 11. This shows that whereas in 1951–52–53 there were 189, 132 and 199 appeals respectively, in 1961–62–63 there were 401, 473 and 396. The number of applications for leave to appeal had approximately doubled during the decade.
In a series of very thorough and helpful Answers which he gave me last year in relation to the year 1964, the Attorney-General revealed that the average time spent by prisoners in custody before leave to appeal was granted was 16 weeks; that in that year 49 appeals against conviction were successful; that in those


cases 14 weeks had elapsed before leave to appeal was given; and that 27 had been in custody and no compensation was granted although the average period spent in custody in those successful appeals was 18½ weeks. In addition, 15 of those 27 appellants had been refused bail and no application had been made in eight cases.
A recent example of this kind of situation occurred where there was an appeal by a young man against conviction of a first offence for which he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. By the time his appeal was heard—in which he was successful—he had served five months' imprisonment, which would be five-sixths of his effective sentence in that case. Meanwhile, his wife and five children were living on National Assistance. It seems a pity that provision is not made in the Bill for automatic compensation in this kind of case, and it also raises another aspect which was looked at by the Committee—the question of bail.
A recommendation was made that
While there are objections to any substantial extension of the grant of bail, the Court should consider steps which will ensure that the exceptional case where bail would be justified is always sympathetically considered.
I know that this is a difficult problem, and it is always easy to be wise after the event when an appeal has been successful. It is not easy at the time of conviction and sentence. Nevertheless, in cases where an appellant's record is such that there is little likelihood of his committing an offence during the period when he is waiting for the appeal or that he would fail to appear in court, I would like to have seen an extension of the power to grant bail explicity written into the Bill and given to the trial court.
I know that the Report does not agree with that view. It states that the power to grant bail should be left to the appeal court and should not be extended to courts of assize or quarter sessions. In that case, however, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to say what proposals he has to deal with this kind of situation, in which a great deal of hardship is caused to many appellants—and to their families—who subsequently, are successful on

appeal and yet have served a substantial term of imprisonment because of the delay before the appeal is heard.
I hope that as a result of these changes, which I warmly welcome, that sort of position will not continue and that it will be possible to have expedition of appeals in the future court.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I wish to follow up the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) about the difficulties and dangers of legislation by reference to the extent to which we have it in this case. I can most briefly illustrate the point by reference to Clause 4, which purports to make changes in the law as distinct from changes in procedure and machinery.
In opening the debate, the Attorney-General said that it considerably extended the powers of the court. I am not sure that he is right, because the Lord Chief Justice has already said of Clause 4(1, a) that it merely gives legislative sanction to what the court now does every day; the Attorney-General said that Clause 4(1, b) merely uses different words to avoid the difficulty which would otherwise have arisen on the new proviso; and of Clause 4(1, c), which omits the word "substantial" the Lord Chief Justice, in another place, expressed the view that the presence or otherwise of that word does not make the slightest difference and that the court will continue to interpret these provisions as it thinks fit.
Assuming, however, that changes are being made, I suggest that in this and every other Bill it is important that if changes and improvements are intended, they should be clearly made. In this case, even to work out what is intended, one has to sit down with the 1907 Act, open it at Section 4 and go solemnly through Clause 4 of this Bill, where necessary crossing out words of Section 4 and inserting the words which appear in Clause 4. Having done that, one can then write out what will finally be the law.

The Attorney-General: At least, this legislation by reference sets out the previous provision referred to, and sets it


out in the lines at the foot of page 4 and he top of page 5 of the Bill. One of the comforts of this is that one does not have to get the hooks to see what the original Act said. That much, at least, the draftsmen have done by way of great kindness to us.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged to the Attorney-General. I am sure that his intervention was meant to be helpful, and that the draftsmen meant to be helpful and kind in drafting Clause 4 as they did, but I suggest both to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the draftsmen that the only way to discover what is being done is by the tedious process which I have described. Then, one gets the wording that we shall have if the Clause is passed in its present form.
Lord Stow Hill, in another place, has done this exercise for us, and I should like to recite the result we shall produce if we have this Clause in its present form. We shall provide that the court shall allow the appeal
if they think that the verdict of the jury should Id be set aside on the ground that under all the circumstances of the case it is unsafe or unsatisfactory or that the judgment of the court before whom the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision on any question of law or there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial, and in any other case should dismiss the appeal provided that the court may notwithstanding that they are of the opinion that the point raised in the appeal may be decided in favour of the appellant dismiss the appeal if they consider that no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st June 1966; Vol. 275, c. 2491
I would ask the Attorney-General and the Home Office to consider before the Committee stage of the Bill whether that may be regarded as a wholly satisfactory form in which to produce these provisions.
I invite them to ask themselves what it actually means. The proviso appears to apply to all three limbs, but can there conceivably be a case in which the court comes to the conclusion that the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory but yet can say that no miscarriage of justice has occurred? Does it not follow that if the judgment of the court before whom the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision on any question of law there must have been some miscarriage of justice? How is the proviso to be applied there?
As to the third ground, of material irregularity, I think that the Attorney-General said that this was merely a new form of words to replace the words which said that if there had been a miscarriage of justice that was a ground for setting aside, and that the new form of words meant the same as the old—that this was to get out of the difficulty we would have if the ground that there was a miscarriage was followed by a proviso also using the word "miscarriage". Can one get out of that difficulty just by substituting one set of words by another that has the same meaning?
To develop the point further would be getting perilously near to what is a Committee matter, but I have made it for two reasons. The first is that I think that I may have said enough to illustrate what great difficulties one may get into by legislating by reference, even with such guidance as we have in this Clause; that there is, in fact, no substitute for setting out for one's own guidance the whole of the wording as it will be, as amended, if we pass this legislation.
My second reason is to invite the learned Attorney-General and the Home Office to give a little more consideration to this question before the Committee stage and to consider whether there is not a great deal to be said for redrafting Section 4 of the 1907 Act altogether—it would not be a difficult job—and, instead of amending it to substitute for it an entirely new Clause.
If we know what we are saying here, it should be easy to say in terms that the court shall allow the appeal on the first, or the second or the third grounds, and then add the proviso. I suggest that it would be very much more satisfactory, if we are trying to improve the law, to have it in that clear form in which it may be understood by all.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Like others who have spoken, I welcome the Bill. It always grieves me when the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is leading for the Opposition on Measures of law reform of this kind, to hear from him again and again the sound, however sibilant, of sour grapes being sucked, apparently on the basis that the


successive Measures of law reform introduced by this Government were not introduced all during the first 100 days. I congratulate the Government on the steady stream of measures of law reform which are coming forth, and which I am sure will continue during the next four years of this and the succeeding Governments of this party.
The general principle of the Bill is one which is generally accepted and it is, I think, desirable not only for the reasons given by my right hon. and learned Friend but also because it will assist in the process of producing consistency in legal decisions. We know that it is the same law which is being applied whether in criminal or civil jurisdicton. It certainly has happened in the past that the Court of Criminal Appeal has found itself in conflict with the views of the Court of Appeal, and this measure, I hope, will tend to prevent that sort of thing happening in future.
I should like to think that this is only the first step in a process which will be continued of bringing into greater logic the division of the appellate jurisdiction. I think there are many of us here who have never wholly understood the peculiar partnership between Probate, Divorce and Admiralty, for example, and although that applies to the High Court itself, of course it also applies throughout the judicial system.
I want to deal, in particular, with two of the Clauses of the Bill—first, Clause 4, which has already been referred to, and I hope I am not going to make a Committee point here. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to tell me whether the words at the end of subsection (2), where the court has to decide whether the sentence it proposes to impose in lieu of that which has been imposed
is of greater severity than the sentence passed at the trial taken as a whole
are a term of art which are understood by the courts, or whether they are new words. I find it rather difficult to understand them and to apply them in particular cases.
For example, is it to be assumed that a sentence of imprisonment, however short, is always more severe than a fine, however great? What of a combination of the two? Again, suppose that a young offender has been sentenced to a short

term of imprisonment. Would a substitution of borstal training be more severe, having regard to the fact that that can last for a period of two years at any rate, or would it be less severe? These are the sort of points which I hope will be cleared up during this debate.
I do not want to spend too long on points of that kind which may be considered to be of a Committee nature. I am more concerned with Clause 5. Here, I welcome the move to go at any rate some way towards ending the system of penalising an appellant for appealing. I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington on that point. My disagreement with the Government is that I do not think the Clause goes anything like far enough. I see no reason at all why an appellant should be in any way prejudiced or penalised for having appealed.
If I am told that this is a sort of reserve power to prevent what is called a frivolous appeal, then there comes to my mind the countless times on which the Court of Criminal Appeal has had before it a man with a very long record of convictions who is appealing against a sentence which, if deserts come into it, is very well deserved, but where the Court of Criminal Appeal says. "This man has never had a chance in his life" and puts him on probation even though the sentence itself was thoroughly justified.
So long as one has the possibility of a penalty being inflicted by the Court of Criminal Appeal, or the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal as it will be, simply because a man has appealed against a sentence and his appeal is considered to be frivolous, one is imposing some inhibition upon people who might very well, if they appealed, be given a chance which will put them upon a better way of life in the future.
I wonder what reason there really is for giving even this remaining power to impose a penalty on such people. Certainly, if the suggestion that there should be a much greater use of bail in the course of an appeal were adopted, there would be very little reason for having this reserve power because in these cases the sentence would start, if the appeal were dismissed, from the point of the dismissal of the appeal.
There is one further point which I would like to ask my hon. learned Friend


upon this Clause, and it is this. My right hon. and learned Friend reminded the House that at present the limit of penalty is 63 days. Now, is the effect of the new Clause as drafted that if the Court of Appeal does give a direction there may be no such limit in the event that the time spent under appeal is longer than 63 days? In other words, does this Clause give the new Criminal Division the right to impose a larger penalty than could have been imposed under the existing law?
If so, I should certainly wish that consideration be given to this during the Committee stage. These are the criticisms which I have of the Bill, and I suggest that in these respects it could go further than it has gone. But subject to that I, and I hope the whole House, give it a very warm welcome.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: Like everybody else who has spoken, I very much welcome the Bill, and I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the former Lord Chancellor and the former Home Secretary for having set up the Donovan Committee to go into the whole of this matter.
The House must obviously be very grateful to that Committee for the speed with which it worked. Over a period of something like 18 months it obviously heard a mass of evidence and came to some very cogent conclusions, and it did so in what was, for a Committee of this type, a very short time. The Government are entitled to congratulations in perhaps a slightly lesser key because it has taken them only nine months to absorb the work of the Donovan Committee. It is a pity that it took the Government as long as nine months to work out a Bill on the framework of what the Donovan Committee suggested.
The matter of the composition of the Court of Appeal was dealt with specifically in paragraph 85 of the Donovan Committee Report, which set out the suggested composition of the new court which is to be set up. I fail to understand why those recommendations are not incorporated in the Bill. The Attorney-General has not dealt with the reason. I should like to hear why it is

not thought appropriate to transplant into the Bill the exact recommendations of the Committee.
It has been suggested elsewhere that there is a need for flexibility. It seems wrong that we should leave to the judges the power to make the composition as they wish. We have the Attorney-General's assurance that the court will probably be constituted as recommended by the Committee, but it seems appropriate that we should have it in the Bill. I can see no valid reason against it.
Like the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), I welcome very much the inclusion of Clause 5. The hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in suggesting that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) had said anything against the Clause. Indeed, he did not say a single word against it.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: If I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), I immediately withdraw and apologise.

Mr. Buck: That is the gesture that one would expect from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was Clause 4 which came under some criticism from my right hon. and learned Friend.
I do not go along with the hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking that Clause 5 does not go far enough. I do not understand why it is thought appropriate that the Court of Appeal should not have a discretion in cases where there has obviously been a frivolous appeal not to allow the time spent in custody by the person to rank for sentence. I feel that the discretion should be unfettered in all cases. It is suggested in Clause 5(1) that the court should not have the discretion where leave to appeal has been granted or a certificate has been given under Section 3 of the 1907 Act. I do not understand why the discretion should be limited in that way. It is possible that the leave to appeal could have been obtained by gross misrepresentation or hoodwinking, but it seems appropriate that the matter should be unfettered there. It is only in extreme cases that the Court of Appeal will use its powers under the Bill, but it seems right that it should have these powers.
I have two other points which are not within the realms of Committee points. The first one certainly cannot be so described. Why has it not been thought appropriate to implement the recommendation in paragraph 136 of the Donovan Committee's Report, which deals with fresh evidence? It was recommended that additional evidence should be received if it is relevant and credible and if a reasonable explanation is given for the failure to place it before the jury. It can be said that this is already being done through the dicta in the case of the Queen v. Kent, but it would seem to me to have been appropriate to make the matter crystal clear by incorporating the recommendation in the Bill.
I reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend said when he spoke about the use of recordings of trials before the Court of Appeal. One of the reasons given in the interim Report of the Donovan Committee for mechanical recording of court proceedings was that it did away with any possibility of there being, as it were, an interpretation of that which is taken down in shorthand. It would seem appropriate that the Court of Appeal should have power to hear the tape recording, for, as the Report stresses, the opportunity to hear the actual words used is one of the salient arguments in favour of tape recording.
It is a pity that the Committee stage of the Bill is to follow so soon—later this week, I understand. But, with these minor reservations, I welcome the Bill. I hope that we shall hear what effect it is likely to have on the waiting lists for criminal appeals. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will also deal with what is possibly a minor point—the suggestion that three courts should sit. It would be interesting to know whether this will be adopted.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: In welcoming the Bill, I can only wonder why we have had to wait so long for these quite minor reforms to be brought about. Clause 4 deals with amendments to appeals from findings of guilt by juries. During the last few months, in quite exalted places, there has been criticism of the jury system. One would think, listening to it, that the only thing wrong with the jury system is that juries

sometimes find not guilty individuals who should have been convicted.
From my own experience, I would be the first to acknowledge that juries sometimes do strange things. I recollect being involved not very long ago in a case I had heard in the summary proceedings. I knew the strength of the prosecution case and also, as I represented the defence, the weakness of the defence case. I had an Irish defendant and an Irish counsel.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will help me. I cannot find this within the scope of the Second Reading.

Mr. Wilson: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. The point I was making—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is to make the same point, I am asking for advice. I am not an expert in the law. For the moment, I am not sure whether it comes within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Wilson: Clause 4 deals with amendment of the law relating to appeals from juries.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. Gentleman further.

Mr. Wilson: In this case, we agreed that the situation was such that only the leprechauns could save us from a long sentence, but with an Irish defendant and an Irish counsel, the leprechauns did their stuff. But now—

Mr. Speaker: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's account of leprechauns, but I have looked at Clause 4, which is about the powers of the Court of Appeal, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to that.

Mr. Wilson: The necessity of altering the law as it relates to appeals from the decisions of juries becomes apparent to those who practise in the criminal courts. It is clear to all of us that it has been necessary for a very long time to widen the basis of appeal. The Bill goes some distance towards remedying the situation, and all of us who practise in the courts must welcome it.
A further point arises out of the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) on the omission of the Bill to relate to the granting of bail. One would have thought that this opportunity would have been taken to remedy that situation. If an individual is convicted by a magistrates' court, application for bail on appeal is sometimes granted. Sentences in the magistrates' court are much smaller than in an indictable case, but at the moment bail is rarely granted in an indictable case. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can tell us, when he replies, that there is some hope of amending the law to cover the question of bail in this type of case.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Everybody has welcomed the Bill, and one has read of its being debated in another place and welcomed by most distinguished people. I only wish that I could join in that welcome. The only thing that I find welcome is that, happily, there is no party dispute over it.
It can honestly be said that we are just as much responsible for the Bill as hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. In fairness, it does not do us the credit that we would wish because it does not begin to solve the problems before us, having regard to the situation in the criminal courts at present.
This is even more disappointing because the last time the matter came before the House was as long ago as 1907, nearly 60 years ago. We have now had the benefit of the Donovan Report, in the production which everybody took tremendous care and trouble, but, as often happens in the House, when we have the benefit of a report of that sort we never arrive at the correct and true solution.
I propose to suggest to the House the true solution here. It may be that in the Committee and Report stages of the Bill matters will have to be gone into in some detail and at great length. I understand that at the moment it is suggested that the Bill can be disposed of quickly at the end of a Friday. Of course, it cannot. It affects the liberty of the subject and is a matter of the greatest importance, and the Government

will have to give time to it next week or the week after.
We are faced with the question: what is the Court of Criminal Appeal there for? Every year we have a Report, an enormous document composed of criminal statistics, but one group of statistics is never mentioned in that Report, and never can be. It is the number of cases in which a jury, with the best will in the world, either because it has been misdirected, or, through no fault of its own, has wrongly believed an identification witness, has made a mistake and convicted an innocent man.
No one here tonight knows what the percentage is or how many people there are rotting in Her Majesty's gaols who are utterly innocent. It may be only 1 per cent., it may be 1½ per cent., it may be 2 per cent. That is something which we do not know. It is the reason for having the Court of Criminal Appeal.
In my view, therefore, the court should be given the widest possible powers and not be pinned down in the way it is by a Bill of this kind emanating from the Donovan Report.

The Attorney-General: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that about 1 per cent. of those convicted have been wrongly convicted and are innocent? It is a most serious and disturbing statement.

Mr. Crowder: I should have thought that the figure was probably very much greater, because one has only to think of cases of identification on their own, of which there are many famous examples. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there is probably no better witness in a criminal case than one who is giving evidence of identification. He is speaking absolutely honestly. He has nothing to fear. He has nothing to hide. He is doing his very best. But one has known, time and again, of wrong identifications. The Beck case is but one example, but there have been many others, as the Attorney-General knows only too well.
Of course, it must happen sometimes that juries will be thoroughly misled by witnesses who are being completely honest. One has seen it happen in the criminal courts time and again. This is why the position of the Court of


Criminal Appeal, in my judgment, is so extremely important, to see that no miscarriage of justice shall ever arise. One knows from one's own experience that it must happen from time to time that completely innocent people are wrongly convicted, though with everyone doing his best to see that the interests of justice are served in the highest possible sense.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making, but for the moment I am not sure how much wider he suggests the jurisdiction should go than is here proposed. It is proposed that the court should have power to set aside a verdict if it is in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the court should have an unlimited power to hear new evidence, for example? What is his suggestion?

Mr. Crowder: I am grateful for that intervention.
If I had my way—I am never likely to have it, so the hon. and learned Gentleman need have no worry—the Bill would have but one Clause, saying, "The court shall have complete power to deal with any appeal as it thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances of the case." Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have complete confidence in Her Majesty's judges who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and I do not see why they should be tied down by the various intricacies which appear in every Clause and subsection of the Bill.
May I give the House an analogy? An appeal goes from the magistrates' court to a court of quarter session. There is a rehearing. When it sits as an appeal court, a court of quarter session is not bound by the straps which we are applying by the Bill to the lords justices of appeal as though they were sitting in a nursery chair. It is a complete rehearing. The court can hear the matter de novo, dealing with it from the very outset. My complaint about the Bill is that it does not give to what is to be virtually one of the highest courts in the land the breadth of power and authority which should be given to the Lord Chief Justice of England and his court.

Mr. David Weitzman: Is the hon. and

learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Court of Criminal Appeal ought to act like quarter sessions, having a rehearing de novo and calling all the witnesses? It would be quite impossible.

Mr. Crowder: No. I am not saying that. With great respect, I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has difficulty in hearing. All that I was saying was that it is rather incredible that a court of quarter sessions, sitting as an appeal court, has very much greater powers, because it is de novo, than the Court of Criminal Appeal is to have under this Bill. That is why I would like to see the Bill very much wider, giving a wider breadth of decision to the new lords justices who are to sit in the court, together with the Lord Chief Justice, and the puisne judges and Queen's Bench judges.
What is to be the difference in this court when it sits? All that is to happen, from a practical point of view, is that two Queen's Bench judges, presumably by 1st October, will be calling themselves by a different name, Lords Justices of Appeal. The court will remain just as it has always been, although it will be calling itself by a different name.
If one looks at this from a practical point of view what happens is that a man is convicted by a jury and then decides to appeal. How does he set about it? Matters have now reached the stage when he can get legal aid. He has had it before. The time between his notice of appeal and the appeal being heard can be anything up to four months and possibly more.
Then there arises the question whether he should be allowed bail. What happens in practice is that once the papers have been looked at, if a judge decides that the appeal has a possibility of succeeding, and the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, he will be given bail, and after some four months the matter will come before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
What has been going on there? What has happened is that Her Majesty's judges, who are overworked in any event, are given the appeal papers, probably on a Thursday or Friday evening, for appeals which are to be heard the following week. This places an intolerable burden upon them. Finally, the matter


comes before the court the following week. That is not the right way to go about it, and the question is: how do we arrive at a solution? First of all, it is wrong that any judge, sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal on Monday, should be asked to sit in court on Thursday or Friday of the preceding week.
The judge must be given time to go through the various transcriptions of the cases which he is to try and decide the following week. That is why the situation as it is at the moment means that the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal are grossly overworked. I do not see that there will be a very great difference. We are to have two of Her Majesty's judges transformed from puisne judges into lords justices. We are to have Queen's Bench judges taken from their circuits and placed in this new court—which is to be exactly the same as the old court—together with the Lord Chief Justice. Despite everything I cannot see that there will be any great improvement.
If the Court of Criminal Appeal was really going to work effectively and sensibly, there should he three courts. There is no need to have a lord justice sitting in any of those courts. I should like to see the Queen's Bench Division doing this, as it always has done, because it has a tremendous advantage in that it is continually on circuit, sitting all over the country and trying criminal cases, seeing what the position is and then coming back to London and sitting in court.
I should like to see at least four divisions of that court, and also ample time given to the judges to study the papers; to read them during the week before the hearing. If we had the court on that much grander scale, but without any lords justices, I think that it would work extremely well; as, indeed, the existing court has for 50 or 60 years since the passing of the 1907 Act.
I apologise for keeping the House at this hour, but if the Government will put down business which directly affects the liberty of the subject at this time of the night then they must not object if there is some comment from this side of the House. What is to happen? I think that everybody now, if not satisfied with

the sentence given, will appeal. Why? Because they have nothing to lose. We know what has happened over the years. When Lord Goddard was Lord Chief Justice some people got some rather nasty shocks from time to time, and others became careful about appealing.
In recent years, however, the practice has grown up for the Court of Criminal Appeal. where it has been minded to increase a sentence, to be kind enough to ask those representing the appellant if they wish to go on. Well, a nod is as good as a wink, but at times the defendant has insisted on going on, and the worst has happened. Now, the Lord Chief Justice, prior to the appearance of this Bill, has announced that the Court of Criminal Appeal would not in future be increasing sentences. Personally, I support that. I think that it is right that if a person is dissatisfied with his sentence he ought not really to run the risk of facing an increased sentence.
Equally, if the appeal is clearly shown to be frivolous and has no merit, and if it can manifestly be shown that the court of first instance—or second—was wrong in the sentence that it passed, then I should have thought it just as well that the risk should remain.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument closely, but is there not a complete illogicality in it? We agree that where an appeal is frivolous and fanciful the appellant should be punished for his impudence, but the sentence should run from the date of the appeal; and, in so far as length of sentence is concerned, is it not proper to say that the sole criteria with regard to having a second look is the very reasonableness of the sentence in the first instance? If reasonable in the first instance, how can that reasonableness be changed by the impudence of the appellant at a later date?

Mr. Crowder: Yes, I agree, but time is important in these matters. One of the problems which could arise is that if we are going to have appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal which not only have no merit but which give rise to instances of where the original sentence was quite wrong, then either the Court of Criminal Appeal will be absolutely


overwhelmed or we shall find ourselves in very difficult circumstances indeed.
I do not know whether the hon. Member recalls that six or seven years ago there was the case of a man caught stealing either golf balls or money from the clothing of people in a golf club while the people concerned were out playing. He was fined £500. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Lord Goddard, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, presided over the court. He said that it was quite clearly not a case for a fine, it was a case for imprisonment, and the man went to prison for about nine months.
My worry about the Bill is that if we take away this power from the court, which I am very loath to do, and the court is overwhelmed with appeals, it will be very difficult to restore this power. The practical solution, therefore, is surely to leave this power in the Bill. In practice, it will not be exercised except in the most extreme cases.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we should punish a man for appealing.

Mr. Crowder: I am not saying that at all. I do not know what has happened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's hearing. I do not expect that he has heard a word of what I have said. I have said that we should keep the safeguard so that if, from a Parliamentary point of view, it became necessary, because of the court being overwhelmed with stupid and frivolous appeals, to use this power, it would be there.
I am very much in sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I would be horrified if I ever appeared before the C.C.A., having advised a person to appeal against sentence, and that sentence was varied or increased, but I am worried that there will be one glorious flood of appeals because there will be no risk, no danger, and no award of costs. It will all be done on legal aid. This is something that we have to worry about, and, therefore, I would not see any harm in keeping the shadow there, although, in practice, one would think that the possibility of its being used was almost negligible.
I have raised a number of points, and I have detained the House for a long

time. This is a Bill which I hesitate not to welcome, because it is a change, and we believe in change in this House, but I cannot see how, on its present basis, it will assist matters any further in any way whatsoever, because it is really calling a dog, which is the C.C.A., by another name, lords justices and the like. I look forward to seeing the Amendments which my right hon. and learned Friend will put down in Committee, for which I hope the Government will give plenty of time, because there is plenty to be said about this Measure.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Those who have spoken so far in this debate are all members of the legal profession, except you, Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out a few moments ago, and now myself.
I suggest that as Members of Parliament we are one-man courts of appeal for our constituents. Every Member must have personal knowledge of at least three, and possibly more, of his constituents whom, after all the consideration that he can give to their cases, he believes to have been wrongly convicted.
Since I came to this place two years ago, I have had three cases of varying degrees of seriousness. One received seven years at Dartmoor, one received two years at Walton, and another was fined for shoplifting. In each case all the procedures of law had been followed. There have been some irregularities, everything that the law has allowed has been done, and it remains my view that at least three of my constituents have been wrongly convicted.
I should like to take up one point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) who talked about identification. During the Second Reading of the Bill in another place the Lord Chancellor deliberately brought up this point. He said:
There may be a case in which identity is in question, and if any innocent people are convicted today (and it is probably impossible ever to have any system of justice which ensures that that can never happen), I should think that in nine cases out of ten … it is on question of identity …
There has been general feeling in the legal profession"—
and certainly outside it—
that if you go to the Court of Criminal Appeal for an obviously guilty client who has


some technical point, if the technical point is good, then the guilty man gets off; but that if your only complaint is that your client is entirely innocent and had nothing at all to do with the crime, then it is much more difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 12th May, 1966, c. 812.]
Some of my hon. Friends who have a genius for getting off a guilty man say afterwards that they know that he is guilty, and that he got off on a technicality, but that to secure the release of an innocent person is much more difficult.
On Clause 4—always a key or controversial Clause—we shall have to wait for the courts to tell us what is meant by "unsafe or unsatisfactory," but if some guidance could be given to the House by my hon. Friend it would be welcome. I have had considerable correspondence about Clause 5, as probably every other hon. Member has. I would disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) and say that we should take the risk that there might be a flood of appeals and that they may be frivolous.
There may be a residual risk that the time taken between sentence and the appeal being heard—which may be as long as four months—will not be taken into consideration as part of the sentence, if the court so decided. We have reversed the procedure and there is a deterrent there. The House may be prepared to take the risk that an innocent person should not be prevented from making an appeal simply because he is afraid of the Clause coming into effect. The deterrent effect will still be in the Bill and in the law.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on Clause 6. He might draw it to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure, which has been considering whether we should record some of our own proceedings—not in the House, but in Committee—by the use of tape recorders. I have been told unofficially that that has been ruled out on grounds of security and that we are not able to do it. This is a very useful innovation, which will have to be watched carefully.
Clause 9 refers to parts of the Bill coming into force on an appointed day or days. May we have some guidance about the time scale which will operate in this respect? The right hon. and

learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said that the Bill was out of his party's box, but he should not be too disappointed about that. He said it with a smile. We accept that the Opposition cannot be wrong all the time. If this is not a dramatic Bill, as he said on two or three occasions, I have had enough drama in this place in two years to last me for a long time. It may be that when we are least dramatic, we are doing our most useful work.

11.33 p.m.

The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I hope that, in dealing briefly with the points which have been raised, I will not give offence if I do not answer them all and some are left to Committee.
The Bill has been generally welcomed, except by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder). It is not exactly a great partisan Measure, although the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) strove and strained to inject a partisan note. There have been measures of law reform before. The machinery now exists for systematic review. On particular Measures, I think that, by the end of this Session, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be surprised by the number of measures then appearing on the Statute Book.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the Bill is not in codified form. One of the difficulties is that when it was discussed, the suggestion was considered of having what is called a "Keeling Schedule", which means a schedule setting out at the end the statutes as amended by the Bill. But when this exercise was applied it was found that it would make for an extremely long Schedule, and Viscount Colville of Culross, who raised the matter in another place, agreed that it would be quite impracticable. It seems better to deal with the reforms point by point of statutes which themselves have to some extent been reformed and then later the whole lot can be consolidated and Parliamentary counsel can look at it as a whole.
The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), however, also raised the question of Clause 4. He


suggested that the effect of the Amendments, if carried, would mean that the Clause would be rather inelegantly worded. But many of the points which he made also applied to the old Section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act. The proviso in the old Section 4(1) could not and did not apply to every one of the reasons for allowing an appeal. There could not be a case in which there was an unreasonable verdict of the jury and an appeal allowable on those grounds and yet one to which one could apply the proviso and say that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. While I agree that the result is not elegant, we are in no worse position in respect of elegance of wording than we were before.

Mr. Percival: I suggest that there is a great deal more than elegance involved. There may have been part of the existing provisions to which it was difficult to apply the proviso, but I suggest that as amended it does not make sense in relation to any of the provisions. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me what he thinks is meant by the proviso as it now stands. What is a miscarriage of justice in this context?

Mr. Taverne: A miscarriage of justice is by the nature of it something which has a wide meaning. It means that justice has gone wrong. There may be cases under the Clause as amended where, for example, there has been material irregularity in the sense that there was irregularity in the course of the direction which was relevant, but, nevertheless, at the end of the day the Criminal Appeal Division, looking at the whole of the evidence, will say that no reasonable jury properly directed could have failed to convict. This, in effect, is what the proviso will mean. It was the conclusion reached by the Donovan Committee that the elimination of the word "substantial", which is the only alteration to the proviso, removes something which was of no practical effect whatever in the first place.
I was asked how many lords justices would now be created. There is no provision for this in the Bill. There is power under the Judicature Act, 1925, to create two more lords justices if the need is felt, and it may well be that it will be felt in these circumstances and

that two more will be created. It is certainly intended that there will be a good deal of continuity.
One of the criticisms directed at the Court of Criminal Appeal in the past was that there was not sufficient continuity and that many inconsistent decisions were reached. It is, therefore, intended that the lords justices sitting in the Criminal Appeal Division will supply continuity and will, therefore, be applying it to the criminal jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal fairly consistently. But exactly how this will be worked must be left to the courts, as an administrative measure.
This answers the question put by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), who asked why we had not enacted in statutory form paragraph 85 of the Donovan Report. I think that this would be very undesirable. It would be very rigid if we said that there must be so many judges of a particular standing who were on a particular appeal. Questions of illness might arise. It might not always be possible to have the Lord Chief Justice and a lord justice and a puisne judge hearing an appeal which is an appeal against conviction. A certain amount of flexibility must be allowed. The whole matter is amply covered by Clause 1 and it will be a matter for administrative arrangements to see how the Donovan recommendations will be dealt with in practice.

Mr. Buck: The hon. and learned Gentleman is using a most unsatisfactory argument. At present, if a whole lot of puisne judges are ill with influenza, county court judges are not able to exercise their jurisdiction. As we are seeking to raise the status of the Court of Criminal Appeal, we should lay down its format and we should not allow simply anybody to sit ad lib as puisne judges in the court.

Mr. Taverne: This matter can safely be left to the Lord Chief Justice, or, if he is not available, to the Master of the Rolls. If we were to provide that so many lords justices would sit in each court, we would make the matter far more rigid than was justified.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the increase in staff. The proposed increase in staff, which is dealt with in Clause 3, is effected in


the following way. Authority is given for the appointment of an additional deputy assistant registrar and an additional legal assistant. If further appointments prove necessary because of the volume of the work, they can be made under Clause 3 with the approval of the Treasury.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then turned to the power to increase sentences. I understand that an Amendment is to be moved, and this is a matter which can be dealt with in Committee. All I would say at this point is that it seemed to me that the Lord Chief Justice in another place advanced extremely cogent reasons why the power to increase sentences should not be kept. It is entirely a matter of chance whether sentences are considered for an increase. Even if, in cases of appeals against conviction, the power was granted to increase sentences, this would deal with only about 10 per rent. of all convictions.
In other cases, it is often a question of the obstinacy of the prisoner who refuses his counsel's advice or it may be because of the inexperience of counsel who advises the prisoner to appeal when the sentence may be increased. Or it may be a case where guile has had to be used by the Court of Criminal Appeal to persuade a case to come up for review of sentence when the intention was not to exercise leniency, but to increase the sentence.
The hon. Member for Colchester and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) asked about the appalling delays which now occur before appeals can be heard will be affected by the Bill. Obviously, I cannot say how the Bill will affect the position in absolute quantity. I cannot say how long the period of delay will be in future. Clearly, however, if two courts will be sitting continuously, and if there is provision also for a third court to sit from time to time, the position will be much better than it is now and, in that sense, the administration of justice should be improved and the delay which now occurs should be materially lessened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley also asked about bail, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson). This is a

matter which was considered by the Donovan Committee, who felt that there were greater difficulties in the way of allowing bail on appeal where a defendant might have a greater reason to abscond. Nevertheless, I do not think that this is a matter which we can deal with in the Bill. It may be that it will be dealt with by administrative arrangements.
We in the Home Office are considering the whole question of bail. While I cannot promise that there will be legislation to deal with the kind of case to which reference was made, nevertheless the question of bail should best be considered on its own and cannot come into this Bill when, so far, it has always been treated as a matter of administrative arrangement.

Mr. Buck: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there are provisions concerning bail in the Criminal Justice Bill which he is in process of preparing?

Mr. Taverne: I cannot give any undertaking of that kind. All that I can tell the hon. Member is that the question of bail is being looked at.

Mr. Crowder: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do so for his own sake. He said something about the guile of the Court of Criminal Appeal, suggesting that it had more or less entrapped a man. I do not know whether it was his intention, but it is a very serious thing for the Government Front Bench to suggest that the Court of Criminal Appeal has been guilty of that conduct. I am quite sure that it was not intended, but as it will be on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT I thought it right to interrupt the Under-Secretary to point this out.

Mr. Taverne: I do not know that I can find the passage. It may be that my memory is at fault, but I think that that was the phrase used by the Donovan Committee—

Mr. Crowder: I am anxious to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, because he is not speaking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have two hon. Gentlemen standing at once, no matter how learned they are.

Mr. Crowder: I agree, though, with great respect, for one awful moment I thought I saw three.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be very careful. I see someone has gone from the Official Box to try to sort the matter out, but we cannot have Government spokesmen accusing the Court of Criminal Appeal of guile, and of leading people into a position where they might have got a bigger sentence. Does not the Under-Secretary think that he had better withdraw that accusation very quickly? If not, he will be in very real trouble tomorrow morning.

Mr. Taverne: I do not, of course, wish to attribute malpractices to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but I would draw attention to a paragraph in the Report of the Donovan Committee which shows that my memory was not entirely at fault. Obviously, I should not have used the word "guile", but the Donovan Committee used a word not very much less offensive. Paragraph 197 states that in certain cases
The Court was privately of opinion, however that the sentence ought to be increased, but was careful to let no hint of this view reach the appellant. In the end the increase of his punishment must have come to the prisoner as a very rude shock, and the granting of leave to appeal as nothing but the setting of a trap.
Therefore, while I do not wish, naturally, to offend the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Donovan Committee itself more or less suggested that this was not a straightforward way of granting leave to appeal, in the sense that it was not the way in which it was seen by the parties more directly concerned.
Again, if one looks at paragraph 201, one sees that the Committee refers to
One way of avoiding to some extent the deceptive procedure which at present must be adopted …
I therefore do not feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making a point of very great substance—

Mr. Crowder: rose—

Mr. Taverne: No, we have dealt with this point, and I do not think that it needs labouring very much further. The reference to deceptive procedure is in paragraph 201.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) raised some points on Clause 4(2). The first was the use of the word "severity." This is really a Committee point, because there are certain cases where one cannot simply put it in terms of increasing the sentence Where the prisoner is convicted on several counts, one of which is quashed, the Court of Criminal Appeal may wish to impose a sentence which, in the end, will have the same total effect as before, although the actual sentence on one count will be increased. Again, in some cases a substituted sentence may be sought to be imposed—one of borstal training, as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned, or a hospital order with a restriction order.
In these cases, the use of the word "severity" gives a general guide which can certainly indicate to the court the intention of the Legislature without tying its hands in an undesirable way. If my hon. and learned Friend wishes to have the precedent for the use of the word, he will find it in Section 3(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1964.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked why an appellant should still be penalised for appealing. When it is said that there is nothing of great substance in this Bill I think that, in fact, Clause 5 provides a reform which is of very great substance. Numerous cases have been sent by hon. Members to the Home Office in which the prisoner has said, "Why has my sentence been increased? "or" Why have I lost 63 days or 42 days of my sentence just because I exercised my legal rights?" It is a very unsatisfactory position in which, as a general rule, with very few exceptions, whenever a man exercises his right of appeal unsuccessfully he finds his sentence increased in practice.
Can there be no exceptions to this? I think that there are difficulties about not having it in the way in which it is now proposed. The fact remains that some sort of deterrent must undoubtedly be provided against being utterly swamped by a very large number of appeals. There are a number of cases where people appeal simply because they wish to have the extra visits. This has been found by certain studies which have been carried out. There are a large number of cases where people do not appeal now because of the possibility of this happening. If


in all cases there was nothing whatever to be lost by an appeal, the heavy burden on the Court of Criminal Appeal would become worse and the sufferers would be those who have meritorious grounds. There is. therefore, extremely good reason for providing some sort of deterrent, even though one recognises that it is rather unsatisfactory.
I was also asked about the 63 days and the fact that there is no provision about that in this Bill. In fact, there is no statutory provision about this limit whatsoever. It is a limit of practice. If the hon. and learned Gentleman turns to the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. Section 38, he will find that there is no provision about 63 days or 42 days there, either.
I do not know that I have dealt with all the points, but I want to finish with another of the important substantial points which I think make this a reform of considerable importance. I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I would not like to say that there are 1 per cent. of people wrongly convicted. It seems to me an extraordinarily high figure, but undoubtedly at the Home Office one sees a number of cases which make one feel very uncomfortable, where one cannot really say definitely "This man was guilty", where, at any rate, from looking at the transcript of the trial, one is left in a very exceptional case with a sense of acute discomfort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South raised this point, too. Often in these cases there is nothing that the Home Office can do because it would be wrong if the Government were to substitute themselves for the jury or for the Court of Criminal Appeal and were to retry the case. This cannot be done.
It seems to me that one must have regard to certain points. Simply to say, "Let us have an entire review of the case de novo" would be very difficult because it would mean that the whole jury system would be set aside to a large extent. The difficulties in what my hon. and learned Friend suggested would be very considerable. Nevertheless, the

power which it is now proposed to give to the Criminal Appeal Division is an extended power and is a very valuable one.
It is true that the Lord Chief Justice said in another place that from time to time the Court of Criminal Appeal has taken the attitude that in all the circumstances of the case it was unsafe to convict. But it is also true that if one looks at other pronouncements that have been made in the past, Section 4(1) of the old Criminal Appeal Act has been much more restrictively construed, and it has often been held that since there was some evidence to go before the jury one could not say that it was an unreasonable verdict and one could not, therefore, interfere with the verdict of the jury. Certainly, the Bill will make it quite clear as to which line of interpretation is to be followed in future.
I hope, in fact, that the courts will not give this new Clause a very restrictive interpretation, but will use it to try to deal with some of these cases of wrongful identification which make so many people feel uncomfortable, that they will feel themselves more free than they have been in the past to interfere with a verdict of the jury about which there must be a considerable measure of doubt, and that it will make it easier for the Home Office to refer some of these cases in which there is this awful sense of doubt to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
It seems to me that for these reasons the new provisions about time spent waiting for an appeal to be heard not counting as part of the time served, and the new provisions about the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal to review decisions of the jury, make this a very important piece of criminal law reform.
I do not share the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is nothing very important or radical in it, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bishop.]

Committee Tomorrow.

CRIMINAL APPEAL [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to transfer the Court of Criminal Appeal's jurisdiction to hear appeals in criminal cases to the Court of Appeal, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the moneys so payable under section 118 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the registrar and any assistant registrar or deputy assistant registrar of criminal appeals;
(b) the cost of making records of proceedings at assizes or quarter sessions in respect of which an appeal lies by virtue of the said Act of the present Session to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal;
(c) the cost of making and supplying transcripts of any such records ordered by virtue of that Act to be supplied to the registrar of criminal appeals or the Secretary of State;
(d) the cost of providing, maintaining and installing at courts of assize or quarter sessions any equipment required for the purpose of making any such records or transcripts; and
(e) any sums ordered to be so paid by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court under that Act to persons attending to give evidence on appeals under the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 or in proceedings preliminary or incidental to any such appeal.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

HORTICULTURE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

11.58 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
I think that nobody can deny that we get variety in this House if nothing else at this time of night, and we now move from criminals to horticulture, which, if I may say so, is rather a pleasant move.
This is the third Horticulture Improvement Scheme to be made since the Horticulture Act, 1960. The first scheme, in 1960, was designed to encourage the better preparation of produce for market. The second, in 1964, the current scheme, went further and provided grants for the equipment needed to reduce the costs of production, as well as an extended range of equipment for preparing produce for market. We welcomed both these schemes when in Opposition and, so far as they go, they have proved their worth.
But experience has shown that they contain restrictions which seem to us to hamper the progressive grower and to put a brake on developments which are taking place in the horticultural industry. That is why we have prepared the new scheme which is at present before the House.
Now, before I describe the main changes which it introduces I should like to refer to some of the developments which have been taking place in the industry in recent years and which this scheme is designed to assist. I expect that many hon. Members have read the record of the examination of the industry which the Government carried out last year in consultation with the farmers' unions. This shows an industry very much on the move. To take one or two examples of recent trends, the importance of the Lea Valley in the glasshouse industry, though still great, is declining. The acreage fell from 965 acres to 632 acres between 1954 and 1965.
On the other hand, the importance of East Anglia as a centre for the production of vegetables and flowers expanded greatly in the same period. Norfolk now


has over 40 per cent. of our carrot production, and the Holland Division of Lincolnshire over a quarter of our cauliflower production and nearly half of our product on of narcissi. In this short period new consumer demands have arisen, new specialist techniques have been introduced, and there is much more stress on growing in locations where soil and climate are suitable than in proximity to a local market.
The rate of technical change has been just as striking. In glasshouses, the importance is now appreciated of maximum light penetration and the precise control of temperature, ventilation and watering. In the sowing of seeds, whether inside or outside, the precision drill, by sowing seeds at set distances, can eliminate much of the pack-breaking work of chopping out. Control and precision are the keynote.
It is clear that in the past 10 years many progressive growers have built up their businesses, that some less suitable land has gone out of production and that other land has been brought into production. This fits in with the changes we should like to see as the industry adapts itself to modern needs and absorbs modern techniques.
The National Plan envisages a selective expansion of horticultural production to meet increasing demand. To achieve this, we intend to help the better grower to build up his business and to help all growers to acquire the equipment that will raise their efficiency and reduce their costs of production. The schemes of 1960 and 1964 have helped growers some way along this road. They have already committed themselves to investing some £15 million, of which a third will be Exchequer grant. Under this new scheme the rate of grant will be the same, and, as I have said, there will be some important improvements.
First, we are removing the provision of the 1964 scheme that land, to be eligible for grant, must have been used continuously for horticulture for at least two years. This will achieve two things: it will help established businesses to take in new land or to remove to more suitable sites, and it will permit grants to bulb growers and others who grow horticultural crops in rotation with farm crops.
Second, grants to vegetable growers are at present limited to land managed on intensive market garden lines, with a certain amount of double cropping. We are now extending grants to growers of vegetables on a farm scale, and to the growers of such crops as celery, who have not hitherto benefited under the scheme.
The scheme achieves these two results very simply. It omits the definition of eligible land in the 1964 scheme. A whole page of restrictive conditions has disappeared, and I am sure that hon. Members, as well as growers, will be glad to hear that.
The main condition which remains is that at all times during the two years preceding application the business must have occupied at least four acres of land, though not necessarily the same four acres. Where the land is covered by glasshouses, lights, and so on, the area will be calculated very much as in the existing scheme. The occupier of such a holding will be able, with the help of grant, to make it better or, if he thinks fit, bigger. But I think that we must retain this lower limit and avoid encouraging the creation of entirely new holdings.
Apart from these broad changes, the main new features are in the Schedule. The most important additions to the items eligible for grant are the erection of new glasshouses, mushroom sheds and other buildings in which produce is grown, as distinct from the replacement of existing ones. That is, we are dropping the requirement in the 1964 scheme that an acre of old glass must be demolished for every acre of new glass erected with the aid of grant.
I think that a word about this is called for. Many glasshouse men today are managing a larger business than they were 10 years ago, and the industry as a whole is benefiting. Yet during that period the national glasshouse acreage has contracted. It does not follow, therefore, that the change we are making in the scheme will result in an undue expansion in the size of the industry as a whole.
The cost of an acre of heated glass is substantial—up to £25,000—and the grower has to put up the greater part. We are satisfied that we can leave decisions to the commercial judgment of


growers and should not impose arbitrary restrictions which could stand in the way of progress.
The new Schedule also includes several types of machinery that were excluded from the 1964 scheme because of the fear that they might be diverted to non-horticultural uses. These include forklift and similar trucks. I remember visiting a farm in Kent where the farmer had put in a new cold store. It was a tremendous height and was only stacked half way up. I asked him why. He said he could not afford a new fork-lift truck. I hope that this scheme will help him and others like him by including forklift trucks. In addition, precision drills and machinery for stapling, stitching, tying and strapping containers for produce are in the Schedule.
We have come to the conclusion that there is less risk than was once thought that such equipment might be sold for a profit by the grower who had received the grant. We shall, of course, satisfy ourselves before approving a grant that the equipment is needed and will achieve economies, particularly in the use of labour. We do not believe that any grower, having achieved these economies, will be tempted to dispose of the machinery and revert to his old methods. We do believe that it is of the first importance for the industry to have this equipment.
These, then, are the main changes which this scheme will introduce. Hon. Members will be interested to know that horticultural marketing cooperatives—which have made good use of the grants in the past—will continue for the time being to be eligible under the new scheme. When, however, the comprehensive system of grants to agricultural and horticultural co-operatives has been established, as provided in the Agriculture Bill now in Committee upstairs, no more applications will be entertained for grants to co-operative bodies under this scheme, as they will be fully provided for in other ways.
The maximum sum available up to the spring of 1974 for these and other grants under the 1964 Act remains unchanged at £24 million, and it may be increased to £27 million. Although, in the past two years, the response to the 1964

scheme has been good, the sum of money provided in the 1964 Act seemed likely to be more than adequate for that scheme. So £27 million remains our best estimate of the maximum response to all the grants and we are not at this stage asking Parliament to increase this figure. We shall see how we get on. But it is not our intention that this provision should be restrictive and I can give an assurance that, if the money provided looks like running out before the spring of 1974, we shall approach Parliament to provide additional money.
I have referred repeatedly to the technical progress that is being made. Some of the recent developments are reflected in the more extensive list of facilities in the Schedule. I should like to pay tribute here to the many groups of growers and scientists which are constantly fostering technical progress. This covers not only the Government-assisted and Government-owned research and experimental establishments, but also the part that growers themselves play in the development of these techniques.
Finally, I should mention that there has been full consultation with the unions over the changes proposed and I think I can say that we have their good will. I commend this scheme to the House as a contribution to the development of a progressive industry of benefit not only to the growers themselves, but to the national economy as a whole.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: We welcome the scheme as a useful extension of the schemes brought forward by previous Conservative Governments. There are, however, one or two questions on which I should be grateful for a reply. If the hon. Gentleman cannot deal with them all tonight, perhaps he will write to me when he has had time to consider.
The hon. Gentleman said there had been full consultation with the unions. I understand that the farmers' unions naturally welcome the scheme but have some doubt about the proposal to call it the Horticultural Development Scheme instead of "Improvement" Scheme. They also wonder whether the alteration of the rules about previous occupation of the land may not lead to a vast concentration of new glasses as opposed to modernisation and replacement of old


glasses, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said about the declining acreage of glass.
With new glass costing, including all its accessories, between £18,000 and £25,000 an acre, it might well be an attractive proposition to some large industrial concern with little previous horticultural connections to take the view that this could be a good investment, as the Government will pay one-third of the cost of any improvements. The grower still has to find two-thirds of the cost of any improvements, of course. As this can involve a very large sum of money, before any individual grower is likely to undertake this expenditure or to find two-thirds of the cost, he wants to be assured of the future stability of the industry. It is to the future stability of the industry that I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to direct his mind.
The fact that there have been some 14,000 applications from growers that have been approved under the old schemes shows their value. The Parliamentary Secretary has drawn attention to the historic merit of the old schemes. At the same time, his colleague's Written Answer to me on 23rd June, in col. 130 of Vol. 730 of HANSARD, shows that there must be many more growers who might have taken ac vantage of the scheme who have not yet done so. Of our 25,000 to 30,000 growers, perhaps as many as 19,000 have not used the schemes to date. I am sorry that the Minister did not make special efforts to furnish me with better statistical information in answer to my Written Question, which was put down in the knowledge that this debate was coming.
We are not concerned only about existing growers coming in. We want to know what may happen in the future. Why are more growers not coming forward to take up their grants? Is it because they are anxious for the future of their industry? If it is, the Minister must state plainly tonight that he can give an assurance for its stability.
Alternatively, are they not coming forward because the grants are inadequate for their purposes? In particular, is the Minister satisfied that the grubbing up grant for old orchards is adequate? With the reduction in the level of the ploughing up grants elsewhere that the present Government have caused, there is a re-

duction in the totals payable on improvements and reclaiming old orchard land.
There are at present, as the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, many new technical advances. One which has been brought to the attention of the House, due to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), is the new technical developments in soil sterilisation following the grubbing of old orchards. These may well make the process of grubbing more efficient, but will also make it vastly more costly. Does the Minister consider the wording of the Schedule to be sufficiently flexible to include such techniques, which may become prevalent in the future?
We on this side of the House have long urged higher grants for grubbing up. Mr. Bullard, the former hon. Member for King's Lynn, my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) and I urged this strongly in Standing Committee B as long ago as January 1964. We were joined in this plea by the late Mr. Hayman, so that, although the plea came primarily from this side of the House, hon. Members on the other side joined us in seeking higher grants for grubbing old orchards.
A bolder policy of grubbing old grounds has long been seen as highly desirable by hon. Members on this side of the House. It should be possible to have a special programme for a limited number of years to encourage the total elimination of derelict fruit, which has an adverse effect on the market and not only the pocket of the individual grower. It is particularly the owners of such trees who are often not in a financial position to meet the remaining two-thirds of the cost themselves.
I do not want to present a picture of a struggling industry of small men, but there are many small men in it who do an extremely good and efficient job. They probably grow more high quality fruit and other food more efficiently than could any large group of financial giants who might be newly attracted to the industry. Indeed, 10 per cent. of the total value of agricultural output comes from the horticultural growers.
It is, therefore, essential that the scheme should be primarily to help the existing growers. The Parliamentary Secretary


said that the National Plan included a proposal to give selective encouragement to horticulture. Surely, we want a more general encouragement to those growers who are already doing a good job rather than to attract large new concerns to the industry. If the small man is to make full use of the scheme, he must have stability.
The making and improvement of roads is one item included in the Schedule. Will the Minister give a clear assurance that a realistic standard of farm road will be taken when applications for grant are considered? For instance, a double concrete strip with a hard centre is frequently perfectly adequate for farm purposes, but his Department has a reputation for insisting on roads and hard standings made up nearly to motorway standards. I hope that a more realistic view will be taken. Further, not only in the matter of roads and hard standings but generally will suitability for the job be taken as the criterion for qualification for all the items in Part I of the Schedule?
We ask the Minister to give an assurance that there will be prompt payment of grants. If these schemes are to be really useful, when all points have been agreed and there is no real cause for substantial delay, prompt payment is very much appreciated by the smaller and the larger grower.
When we debated these matters on 15th June, 1964, I said that I was sorry that no provision had been made for bee keeping. One realises that bees are, technically, livestock, but the importance of bees in horticulture can readily be underestimated, and I hope that the needs of the bee keeper will be provided for in Part I of the Schedule when the scheme is next under review by the Minister. I am well aware that it is too late tonight, but I must remind the House that the present Minister of Agriculture gave a clear indication his words are reported in columns 1036–7 of HANSARD of 15th June, 1964—that he was in favour personally of including bee keeping in these schemes. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will take instructions from his Minister on the subject.
The facilities offered to horticultural co-operatives by Part II of the Schedule are very welcome, although, as the hon.

Gentleman reminded us, they will be overtaken by the Agriculture Bill now in Committee. But it is absurd to be providing new grants under this scheme and under the Agriculture Bill when, at the same time, the Chancellor—I am glad to see his representative on the Front Bench—is so drastically penalising growers' co-operatives with his scandalous Selective Employment Tax. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to draw his right hon. Friend's attention to this serious anomaly, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will convey our complaint to the Chancellor.
I particularly welcome inclusion in the Schedule provision for such handling equipment as fork-lift trucks. Mr. Scott-Hopkins, the former Member for Cornwall, North on this side of the House, gave a clear explanation of the difficulties which lay before the House two years ago, and we are very glad that it has been possible now to make the advance which he then envisaged.
The section dealing with facilities for use in markets in the last part of the Schedule is, of course, important, but one wonders whether it is sufficiently forward-looking in taking account of the almost inevitable moving away from traditional methods. Would not this scheme have presented an opportunity to encourage further progress in new marketing methods rather than harking back to the traditional methods which we still have in this country? It is essential, if British horticulture is to prosper, that the Minister should keep up with technical and commercial advances, and schemes such as this should be worded in as flexible a manner as possible if they are to help rather than perpetuate the out-dated. Flexibility has been the much sought after quality in the past six years when these schemes have been debated. Members on both sides of the House, and such people as the present Minister of Agriculture and the former Labour Member for Norfolk, South-West, now Lord Hilton, have asked for this quality of flexibility. In conclusion, may I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to see that this scheme is administered in as flexible a manner as possible?

12.20 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: The proposals in this scheme will be of very


great help to those engaged in the horticulture industry. Horticulture is an important industry, accounting for one-tenth of the agricultural output of Great Britain. It is an important import saver, If not a major exporter, and it is important that we should give it some attention.
At present some sectors of the industry are in difficulty, and one such sector, the Lea Valley, is to some extent situated in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary quoted the decline of the acreage under glass in the Lea Valley. This results, to some extent, in foreign competition which is particularly undermining the production of cucumbers.
Last year we imported almost £3 million worth of cucumbers. This represents an increase over the figure for 1961 of £2 million. Other crops are also under pressure from foreign competition, and in my view there is no doubt that some of this competition is unfair. Although there may be a case for looking at the import situation, the true answer to the present position must be in modernising the industry. For this reason I welcome the proposals we are now considering.
Today, if larger glasshouses are built, if we have automatic ventilation and watering, if automatic efficiency is increased, it is possible for the industry to compete effectively with foreign competitors. If it is true that the Lea Valley growers did not invest enough in the past—and I am not saying that it is true—it is true that at present many are interested in investing a great deal and it is only right that the Government should give them assistance.
During the period that I have represented Epping I have visited a number of progressive firms, operating glasshouses and nurseries. It is very important that we should seek to do what this scheme is aiming at, to encourage the increased efficiency of these nurseries. One problem that has concerned people in the Lea Valley has been the threat of development. They have not known whether their land would be taken away from them for housing purposes. Many growers are prepared to move away and they need help to do so. My hon. Friend has already referred to the high cost of investment in glass. I understand from people engaged in the industry that it is

certainly less than £20,000 an acre. The previous schemes restricted grants to land which had been under horticulture for two years and the Ministry promised a concession on this in answer to a Question which I put down on 1st November last year. The present scheme provides that businesses which occupy at least four acres for the previous two years, not necesssarily the same four acres, will qualify for the grant. I welcome this very much because it will encourage the progressive nursery owner. I know that many of the growers in my area are most hard working. Many who come to see me are men who work very long hours and they are deserving of the sort of encouragement which this scheme gives them. It provides for the erection of new glasshouses and other structures without there being the demolition of an equivalent area of glass or other structures in order that a grower may qualify.
I can tell the House that this has been welcomed by spokesmen for the horticultural industry, and the scheme is something on which we should congratulate the Government. At the same time, I would like to draw attention to this point. There is a great need for arrangements to be made so that growers can be informed that they will not qualify for approval of new plans if that approval is not given before purchases of equipment are actually made. I went to the Minister on one occasion when a constituent of mine had started work before full approval had been given, and that man did not qualify for a grant. It is important that we should see to it that growers are fully informed of the situation. When we are dealing with people who are often small men and who have a great deal of outside work to do and who tend to be pressed for time, it is extremely important that we should see they are fully informed about the facts of this or any other scheme.
We should also try to see that the process of giving approval is speeded up, because if an essential item of equipment suddenly breaks down it may be absolutely necessary—especially in the case of the small grower—to install other equipment quickly if his crop is not to he spoiled.
There have been many other improvements for the horticultural industry besides the benefits given under this scheme.
This Government has shown its faith in this industry by doing what it has done since it came into office. We need a thriving horticultural industry to help us, apart from anything else, solve our balance of payments problem, and this scheme now being considered will make a definite contribution to that end. It offers considerable assistance to the glasshouse men, and in reading the Newsletter of the Lea Valley Growers' Association I see that a great welcome has already been given to it. I want to congratulate the Government on the attention it has given to this important industry and I hope that, as a result of the operation of this scheme, this industry will become more prosperous and be able to make an increasing contribution to our national well-being.

12.27 a.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: It is nice to have a new recruit on behalf of horticulture, and I would say to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) that there was a time when I was chairman of my party's horticultural committee and I knew a lot about the problems in the glasshouses. There is no doubt that where the hon. Member speaks of is not the most suitable part of England for a large glasshouse industry, and there were tonnages of tomatoes grown there in the course of the time of which I speak which were more comparable to some other industry and which in itself led to an imbalance of the tomato trade in Britain. That could only be rectified by the current tendency, referred to this evening, namely, a gradual reduction of acreage of glasshouses in the Lea Valley. I was interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that it had fallen by about 300 acres in recent years. In my view the best hope for the horticulture industry in that part of the world is for the green belt restrictions to be relieved. I think that when the Lea Valley Bill, which has just finished its Committee stage, is fully used we shall see a better future for the efficient growers, and perhaps not only in the Lea Valley, but in the whole market.
We have to admit that the need for this Order is really a confession of failure. Any necessity for granting aid to an industry must mean that something has gone wrong with the economics

of the industry. There is no doubt that the need for this grant has come about because the profitability of the industry has not been sufficient to provide the capital to plough back into the industry, and therefore we have had to provide this artificial boost to it.
I believe that the right solution is for the public to pay the real price for food. It does not do so at the moment. It gets its food on the cheap, or thinks it does, and the price of thinking it does is to pay higher taxation to finance grants of this kind. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul the whole time.
Year after year we gull ourselves that this is sound assistance to the industry. Both sides of the House have done it. Both Governments have done it. I regard this as the economics of the lunatic asylum, and the sooner this country faces the real value of growing things, and the real value of marketing things, the sooner we shall get the economy sound. The more we employ artificial methods to try to boost one industry here, and another there, the more difficult it makes it for any Government, and most of all the Treasury, to make sense with the economics of this nation.
One of the criticisms which ought to be made about these schemes is that all too often they result in the people who could well afford the one-third grant, getting it when they could well afford it themselves without assistance from the State, and those who most need the grant not being able to provide the two-thirds which they have to provide to get a grant at all. To this extent this scheme is an improvement on the previous one because it brings in people who would not hitherto have come in, but I still say that the whole system is wrong. Nevertheless, if anybody is going to be helped in this matter, it ought to be those who have suffered most through no fault of their own from marketing policies and trade agreements which are unfairly damaging the industry.
What on earth does paragraph 3(1, b) mean? It says:
(1) Payment of a grant under section 1(1) of the Act of 1960 to the person carrying on a horticultural production business, or to the landlord of land occupied for the purposes of such a business and being or comprised in an agricultural holding, shall not be made unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that …


(b) the business would, after the approved proposals have been carried out, be capable of yielding an adequate return to any person carrying it on with reasonable efficiency and as a full-time occupation.
How on earth can any Minister come to the House and say that he knows that this can be fully implemented? How can any Minister truthfully say today that he knows what will be an economic yield in the foreseeable future during the operation of this scheme? It must surely depend on the price of the market, on the tariff protection for the industry, if any, and on our progress in getting into Europe. In other words, this is a highly specious statement.
No Ministry can honestly say that it knows what would be an adequate return for reasonable efficiency in the next few years. Our economy seems to be on an ever-steeper slope with an ever more slippery surface and an ever-bigger precipice at the bottom. No one can tell where the economy as a whole is going, let alone that of the horticultural industry.
Whatever we may say about the Common Market, let us recognise that none of our industries is more at risk than horticulture. Many of our necessary reservations will have to be strongest about horticulture, if we are not to betray these people. Many of us with growers in our constituencies know that there are few people more hard working than these people, often with a wife and family, who run holdings on extremely small margins, and who learn by bitter experience, if I may use the metaphor, not to have too many eggs in the strawberry basket.
Their hours of work would put many other industries to shame. We alone can sometimes claim comparable hours. At this time, 25 minutes to one in the morning, they often get up in the winter, if there is a frost warning, to see that the heating appliances are working satisfactorily. We are dealing with some extremely honourable people, and we all recognise that as long as we have a policy of free trade, which I once described and do again as a vulture hanging over British agriculture and horticulture ready to take the pickings which are going, so long is horticulture in peril.
In my constituency, in the Wisbech area, apples and pears, and especially strawberries, are grown in large quantities. Because of Government policy—I do not blame only this Government—through

the Restrictive Practices Court, wrecked any chance of the Wisbech strawberry industry continuing as it used to do because it ruled out a very sensible pricing agreement with the merchants. So many aspects of Government policy damage this industry, which makes it all the more important that we should recognise that unless we sooner or later provide the industry with a fair return from the market we shall have to have this sort of scheme year after year.
This is an entirely artificial means of supporting an industry. The sooner we get back to reality the better. The tragedy of the schemes will always be that the people who need them most will not be able to afford their share and the people who get the full benefit, would not, if they tried, need it. That is the damning with faint praise which I am forced to give to the scheme. As long as we have to have these schemes, this is probably as good a one as we shall get.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Having listened to most of the previous debate and all of this one, I would say that it is a good thing that there are not many lawyers in horticulture. I have one general and one particular point to make.
When we were discussing the 1964 scheme, Mr. Scott-Hopkins, then the Member for Cornwall, North, drew attention to the strength of the N.A.A.S. In this scheme we are concerned with a wide range of new equipment, much of it highly technical. At that time Mr. Scott-Hopkins hoped that there would be an increase, which is very necessary, of 15 to 16 per cent. overall and about 10 per cent. in experts in glasshouse equipment, which is a subject with which we are concerned this evening. If the scheme is to work it is vital that the strength of N.A.A.S. and the knowledge and expertise required should be provided. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us how this campaign for recruiting has progressed and how it is matched in with the Scheme.
That is the particular point. I come to the general point. I second what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). I welcome the scheme as the logical extension of the 1960 and 1964 schemes—and it is an important extension. It means


a definite intention to continue to expand support for horticulture and if it works it will result in increased production, which is the first important general point.
Valuable and useful as it can be, it seems to me that its value, if we accept that there will be increased production, can be largely affected by other legislation somewhere in the pipeline or by what I term the other half of a strong horticultural policy. I do not want to go into other legislation at depth, because I should be out of order to do so, but it is in order to mention three particular Measures which, granted the effectiveness of this Order, should be seen alongside it.
The first is the withdrawal of investment allowances. I know about the 5 per cent. supplement, but this will be valid only to those paying a low rate of tax, and therefore less likely to apply for grants. The second is the Capital Gains Tax. Anyone proposing to invest must surely have regard to the rate of inflation and to the knowledge that he will be faced with a 30 per cent. tax on his investment or his holding or on his wealth when he sells or passes it on. The third is the Selective Employment Tax, with particular reference to marketing organisations. I hope that very soon we shall have the chance to say a great deal more about this. It must run counter to the purpose of this Scheme.
Finally, I turn to the strong horticultural policy. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) mentioned this—and, like my hon. Friend, I welcome him to the band of supporters of horticulture in the House. I refer to a realistic view about imports, for if we are to encourage increased production that is looking at only half the problem, if there is not at the same time a clear and intelligible view about imports. This does not exist in the Government's policy. Are we to continue to rely on tariffs and, if so, how can they be improved both in timing and extent, or are we to turn to the minimum price system, which is quite possible under the terms of the last Conservative Acts dealing with agriculture and horticulture? I have always felt that, with Europe ahead of us in some form or another, we are working this way whether we like it or not, and in a chronic balance-of-payments crisis which which

we permanently live, it is crazy not to make provision for this in agriculture. Nowhere is it more applicable and relevant than in horticulture. It therefore seems to me that the question of tariffs versus minimum prices ought to pay a much more important role in the Government's thinking than it appears to have played in the two years for which they have been responsible. I hope to hear more about that in the context of the scheme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Tariffs are a little wide of the scheme, which is concerned with improvement grants on building and other plant and equipment. I must call the hon. Member's attention to this point otherwise the Minister will be out of order when he replies.

Mr. Hastings: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point simply was that the scheme is concerned with an increase in horticultural produce; and to say that without turning an eye, if only a cursory one—I shall not take the matter further—towards the problem of imports is to look at only half the problem instead of the whole of it.
I am sure that growers in my area, as much as in the areas represented by all hon. Members who have spoken, will welcome the scheme. While we are doing it, however, we are entitled to draw a distinction between the logical and practical aims, as I see them, of the Ministry of Agriculture and the inconsistent and, indeed, contradictory policies of the Government as a whole.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that I am one of those tedious beasts, a horticultural lawyer. I agree, however, with every word of what my hon. Friend has said, even when he went out of order. The scheme will have fairly general support in the County of Holland, where some 20,000 people are engaged in various forms of horticulture as described in the scheme.
Modern methods have enabled a considerable growth in output to be achieved in that county. Ten years ago, only one-quarter of our field vegetables came from in and around South Lincolnshire. The proportion has now risen to


one-third. There has been a similar expansion in bulbs. I am proud to say that the Holland in England can now rival Holland across the Channel in the quantity and quality of the bulbs produced. These strides forward have been made possible only because in that county there is some of the richest and most responsive land in the country, and because of that even a single acre can provide a livelihood.
There are quite a large number of smallholdings of only one or two acres which are an economic proposition. Some growers, with the aid of movable lights, are able to produce four crops a year. Last weekend, I heard of one grower who, with much ingenuity, succeeded in producing five crops last year. I am sorry, therefore, that in paragraph 3 the scheme stipulates that four acres is the minimum eligible for a grant. Even with a multiplier for glass, this may rule out some viable holdings on the very rich land.
My other criticism of the scheme is that the Government still do not realise the dangers of surpluses. I know that this warning was uttered in another place a few days ago, but during the last 12 months hundreds of tons of onions, for example, have been dumped in the County of Holland and yet we have imported vast quantities, even from the dollar area. One of the reasons is that we have still a lot to learn about grading, and much of the unsold produce was ungraded. The Government must remember that improvements in grading must keep pace with improvements in production.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: Representing as I do part of the South-West, which is vitally interested in horticulture, I feel compelled to take part in this debate. I welcome the fact that the grant scheme is now being considerably widened and that not only will the intensive market gardens be included, but also the semi-intensive and what I call the straightforward market garden. This will considerably benefit the area I represent, where we are not as intensive as some other areas but where there are very large acreages of vegetables and flowers.
The industry must take this scheme very seriously. It should take advantage of all that it has to offer, and so get

itself up to date in order to meet ever-increasing competition from abroad With modern methods the transportation of vegetables and fruits is much faster and easier, and this affects our home growers to a great extent. Modern methods and mechanisation abroad mean cheaper and better production of crops. The Common Market will also mean severe competition for our own growers. The industry must therefore get its house in order and up to date in order to meet this very strong competition from abroad.
Paragraph 7(1, a) refers to
… an application in writing for the approval of the appropriate Minister stating the facility which the applicant proposes to provide …
There is a real danger here of a grower or farmer being persuaded or advised, possibly by the N.A.A.S., to do more than he can afford. These people are always trying to persuade me to do just that. I hope that the Minister will realise the danger of the small.grower, in particular, undertaking too elaborate a scheme, into which too much capital has to be invested. Capital is costly, interest mounts, and these modernising and labour-saving schemes can be overdone. I hope that this point will be noted.
We also have to bear in mind the grower who cannot afford to provide the other two-thirds, because he is the very man, especially in the South-West, whom we want to help. Many of the small growers face this difficulty. I want them to be helped somehow, and I hope that the Minister may have some ideas for doing so.
As I say, I welcome the scheme. I hope that the industry will take advantage of it, because I believe that as there will be very severe competition in the future it is vitally important that the industry should be brought up to date.

Mr. J. B. Godber: At this late hour, I only want to endorse what my hon. Friends have said in giving a modest welcome to this slight extension of schemes which we ourselves introduced in 1960, with an extension in 1964. I myself was concerned with the horticultural measure in 1960, which was a very valuable forerunner, and I am glad that the Government have now


made these extensions, which are generally welcome.
Incidentally, I am glad that we have the presence of the Scottish Minister of State. Though no Scottish points have been raised, that does not mean that there are not a number of very important Scottish interests involved in horticulture, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.
As to the scheme, I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was right to call our attention to the examination of the horticultural industry, particularly in connection with the extension of the scheme to new greenhouses and mushroom sheds. This was a perfectly fair point to make. The really clear thing that arises from the table on pages 22 and 23 of the Report is that the two crops which show no improvement over the 10 year period are tomatoes and cucumbers, comparing home production with imports. Other crops show modest increases, but with regard to tomatoes and cucumbers possibly the extension of the grants for new glass other than for replacement may help in encouraging growers to instal the latest types of facility to assist them to compete with the European producers who are our main competitors.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is as anxious as we are on this side of the House that growers shall make the fullest use of the newest techniques. I visited the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering at Silsoe and saw some of the developments in new glasshouses. The growers there were confident that with the use of these newest techniques we could do better than our European competitors. Therefore, I welcome this extension.
I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary included mushroom sheds in his remarks, and the appendix on page 17 shows that whatever has been happening with other crops, mushrooms have been booming. I give full credit for that fact. No doubt, it was necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to include mushrooms in these remarks, but it will be seen that the amount devoted to mushrooms has trebled in the same period, so that the arguments do not apply to them to the same extent as they do to tomatoes and cucumbers.
Another point arises on paragraph 49 in the Report, which I would have hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would draw to the attention of the Treasury. I hope the Treasury representative will have read that paragraph because never have I seen a clearer justification for an industry to be included in the first category of the Selective Employment Payments Bill. It says that the cost of labour is a major item in production costs. It goes on to say, and this will gladden the heart of the First Secretary of State, that growers' prices for main crops have not changed much in the past 10 years, at a time when the cost of goods and services have risen substantially, and this is a reflection of the fact that the industry has absorbed its increased costs, including high labour costs. If that is not a case for saying that it is a manufacturing industry, then this is a distortion of words.
Here is a clear indication that if anyone is entitled to the premium on their labour costs, this industry is. This is stated in words produced by the present Government. Therefore, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will fight that battle. We shall be fighting it in the coming days, and I shall look forward to support from the Ministry of Agriculture and from the Scottish Office. If we can get their support I feel that the united efforts of the Opposition plus those of the Ministry of Agriculture and of the Scottish Office will help to defeat the machinations of the Treasury.
With those words, I endorse what my hon. Friends have said, that we welcome these proposals which are helpful and we are glad that the present Government have followed the wise course which we established previously.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. John Mackie: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised in this debate. First and foremost I should say that I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) at the Opposition Dispatch Box. I am aware of his interest in horticulture and we look forward to hearing him again. The hon. Member raised many points, as did others. One point was the question whether a direct grant without requiring the scrapping of an acre of glass would increase glass to an extent that there might be over-production.
I really think we should leave this to the judgment of the industry. As some hon. Members have pointed out, £25,000 an acre is not going to give us thousands of acres of glass, especially as they pointed out there is the difficulty of raising the remaining two-thirds. I do not think we should think this is too dangerous a procedure.
I am glad many hon. Members opposite appreciated the value of the examination of the horticultural industry. This is a mine of information which gives a tremendous lot of figures and statistics on the industry which will be a great help and guide to any policy we care to look at in the future. On the question of capital investment and resources, we all know that the Government taking on guarantees of bank loans provided since 1964 is of material help to the industry, and will be for the next few years, so that should help a little.
The hon. Member for Maidstone and others emphasised that we should do something to create stability. This in itself should create stability. The fact that £27 million is going to be poured into the industry to help in new techniques, equipment and everything else, and the system of tariffs over the years until these techniques help the industry to become fully competitive, should help. I do not want to enter into the argument over the Common Market, but one of the things that does not help to create stability is debating whether or not we should go into the Common Market, and the hon. Gentleman's party are very keen to do that. Anxiety about stability may be created by this desire of one side to go in.
The hon. Gentleman brought up the point about there not being a sufficiently big grant for grubbing up old orchards. We feel that the grant of one-third should be sufficient for this and that as a general policy a one-third grant is the maximum that should be given except for drainage grants. I do not quite follow the argument that this should carry a bigger grant than anything else.
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman, for it is not often that a Minister gets the opportunity of evading questions and replying by letter. But on any points I have not answered, or cannot answer tonight, I will see he gets an answer by

letter. He asked us to keep our eye on new techniques and see that they were included in any Schedule, and I assure him that we will do that. He emphasised that it is the small man we want to help. We do this of course, but the small man must take his chance with the rest. We all know that the bigger man has greater facilities and more money to take advantage of these things. The same is true of agricultural support schemes, as well as of anything else.
I was asked what sort of roads come under this scheme. Farm road techniques, such as hard core and water bound and so on, if properly done all come under this scheme. I am not sure if two single tracks of concrete with weeds in between comes under it. But the hon. Gentleman can take it that in relation to roads the scheme is fairly flexible. I do not think we ask for motorway standards, or anything of that sort.
On the question of prompt payments, I have some figures of the various times it has taken over the years to make payments, and I do not think there have been any great delays. We who are farmers do sometimes delay things ourselves by not giving all the information required, by changing the plans in the middle of the application and so on, and all this can delay things considerably. But, roughly speaking, the proposals involve three stages, and approval takes an average of two months. The applicant carries out the proposal. How long it takes him depends on him. He applies for payment, and it should not take more than four weeks after that. I do not think anybody could ask for much better than that.
We have no powers to deal with beekeeping. I have never been fond of the brutes. They always seem to sting me. However, I appreciate the importance of bees to horticulture, but meantime there are no powers to help. I will not be drawn into an argument about the Selective Employment Tax.
The hon. Member mentioned Section 32. I have made a note "further progress and question caught". But I do not know where I am, and so I am afraid that is one which will have to be answered by letter—once I find Section 32.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) has very close connections in his constituency, as I have as I live in it and live at the head of the Lea Valley, with the question of cucumbers and imports. I know that this year the cucumber people have not done too badly in spite of the heavy imports. He was very pleased with the scheme and felt that it would help—and I think it will—the industry to compete with stuff coming from abroad.
My hon. Friend got on to the question of housing development again. This may be a little out of order, I think, but he knows what we are doing here. He knows that we are doing our best to get the planning authorities to come to decisions so that the Lea Valley growers are not kept in the air too long about it. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that these people are very hardworking. They work long hours. I looked at the clock as my hon. Friend was mentioning it and suggested that we worked just about as long. I agree about that.
Reference was made to occasional hard luck cases—there are such cases, and they often seem to be hard luck cases—where grant is not given because of starting before full approval is given and so on. When spending public money we must have rules and regulations to deal with it. It is stated in black type twice in the application form that grant will not be paid if the job is started before full approval is given. This is emphasised by all our officers. No grower or farmer can have any doubt about this if he can read or listen. We cannot do more than we are doing about it. I know that there are many hard luck cases, and farmers will just need to listen and read.

Mr. John Wells: The point made by my hon. Friend was where there was an emergency, such as a boiler blowing up on a frosty night. Clearly, this would be fixed up verbally with the officers of the N.A.A.S. first thing in the morning. Can there be an assurance that in special cases something may be done, though it is generally recognised by farmers and growers throughout all schemes that they cannot expect any grant if they begin without approval?

Mr. Mackie: Special approval can be given to start work in emergency, and our officers can give that. I mentioned the speed at which approvals are generally given. If farmers would get their plans finalised before they put them forward and not change them in the middle of the job, approval should come within two months.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said that the need for the order was a confession of failure. The hon. Gentleman wanted the public to pay the real price. I ask him—how? He said this was an artificial way of giving the price to farmers. But what is more artificial than an enormous tariff? That is also an artificial way of raising prices. It is not possible, in this day and age and in our present circumstances, with countries having different standards of living and so forth, to do anything except what we are doing—to give grants to growers. But the system in the Common Market is just as artificial. To put a huge tariff wall around an area means artificially to raise prices. I cannot, therefore, see any differences.

Mr. Godber: This is an extraordinary statement. The hon. Gentleman is as aware as we are that the basic method of supporting horticulture in this country is through the tariff. Is he now repudiating that system?

Mr. Mackie: I am saying that both systems are artificial.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman must not say we are doing away with it.

Mr. Mackie: I did not say that. I said that, whichever method we adopt, either is artificial. I was asking what was the difference between a tariff way of artificially raising prices and our present system.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The big difference is that the tariff is paid by those who eat the fruit or vegetables, for example, whereas a grant of this kind is paid for by the taxpayers whether they eat fruit or vegetables or not.

Mr. Mackie: That does not alter the fact that both ways are artificial methods of raising prices. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of who is to provide the two-thirds. As I have mentioned, there are credit facilities. All of us can get hold of an order or an Act


and read out a piece of legal jargon, as the hon. Gentleman did. But the piece of jargon he read out is not one that he can really take exception to. Indeed, it was put in by the Conservative Government in the 1964 order. He is a reasonably sensible person and he knows that there has to be a judgment at the time of grant about prices and conditions. Assessment has to be made of the standard of the business involved and its size.
That is all our officers will be trying to do. They cannot be expected to sit down and think about what may happen with the Common Market or whether prices will or will not fall next year and so forth. It will be a judgment taken perfectly sensibly in the circumstances of the time. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak of horticulturists as being hard workers, and again I agree with him. He said that we must go back to reality and again made the point about the prices people should pay.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked about the strength of the N.A.A.S. and whether this scheme would give it extra power. We are doing a lot to recruit, and have recruited, quite a number of new members. It is difficult, in horticulture, to get people with experience for this job but, in 1964, 30 people with lesser qualifications were recruited to help with the grant schemes and have proved their worth on the job.
The hon. Gentleman went on—but he was out of order—to suggest that other facets of Government policy atrophied the value of the scheme. I doubt that. The number of those taking advantage of it is considerable and so horticulturists do not seem to agree with him either. He went into the question of imports and tariffs, and no doubt he was out of order there, so that lets me out. I did not make that ruling, Mr. Speaker, but your predecessor in the Chair. But the hon. Member welcomed the scheme, though he again stressed that we should appeal direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), whose constituency has greatly increased its horticultural production, was worried about the very small acreages less than four, which were growing five crops a year. I should not mind a few acres of that kind of

land, and I should not mind that sort of climate, but we have to have a standard somewhere. There are certain crops—rhubarb, mushrooms and watercress are mentioned in the scheme—where one multiplies to get the acreage.
The hon. Member said that onions weft rotting while we were buying onions from abroad. This question has been raised several times. Unless we get very good drying weather for home-grown onions they do not keep so well as Spanish onions. In a wet year there is difficulty for onions, and we have to import them. It was also emphasised by the hon. Member that grading and everything else was essential in marketing, and many of the things that we have in the scheme will help that.
I thought that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was going to have nothing but praise for the scheme and then sit down. He rightly emphasised that field vegetables came under it, and he has more of that kind of horticulture in his area. He hoped that the industry would take up the scheme. I hope that it will. It is all to its good, and it will help to put the industry's house in order if or when we enter the Common Market.
I have never felt that the N.A.A.S. tried to make farmers do more than they should or could. It tries to give farmers advice, and on the whole it gives very good advice. We all know how our businesses expand and how we put up a shed or buy something that turn out not to he big enough in a few years' time. Probably the N.A.A.S. people have had quite a lot of this sort of experience and that may be what the hon. Gentleman is thinking of. The hon. Member also mentioned the question of credit. Help on this is given it may not be sufficient, but it is some help.
The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) produced some grudging praise and made a party point or two at the last moment. He spoke about the increase in the glass on tomatoes and cucumbers. I think the statistics show that the figures for cucumbers have fallen and for tomatoes have risen. He also was out of order by mentioning the Selective Employment Tax. Nevertheless, he finished with slightly less grudging praise, for which I thank him.
In view of those answers, and the written answers that are to follow, I am sure that the House will accept the scheme with great gratification.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, 1966. a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

DEATH DUTIES

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Italian Republic of the Convention in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (Italy) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th May, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

To he presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

PROCEDURE

Mr. Eric S. Heffer and Mr. Roy Hattersley discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. John Parker and Mr. W. T. Williams added.—[Mr. Lawson.]

FARMER, LEIGHTERTON (BULL LICENCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

1.19 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I welcome the opportunity to refer to the case of Mr. Butler, who lives at Hillside Farm, Leighterton, in my constituency. I am sorry that the lateness of the House condemns the Minister to stay here yet a little longer, but I am glad that he has at least had better luck than I have had today and caught the eye of the Chair no less than twice, and to judge by his last speech, he appears to be in genial mood.
The hon. Gentleman knows about this case, and we have been in correspondence about it. Nevertheless, I thought it necessary to bring the matter before the House because my constituent labours under a sense of grievance which is to a large extent justified, and a point of principle arises. Mr. Butler has been in his farm at Leighterton since 1926. For 40 years he has been a member of the British Friesian Society. He is a specialist breeder of those animals, and is very highly regarded as one of the most successful in the country.
His farm lies on the top of the Cotswold Hills and is very much exposed to the weather. In order, so to speak, to take advantage of these conditions, which others might regard as natural deficiencies, Mr. Butler has turned his activities to concentrate on breeding a very hardy race of Friesians. This is work in which he believes in principle, quite apart from its being dictated by the circumstances of his farm.
Mr. Butler has been outstandingly successful, but the beasts he raises grow more slowly than they would on farms less exposed to a hard climate, and they develop rather late. For that reason, there have on several occasions been differences between Mr. Butler and the Ministry of Agriculture on whether bulls which he has bred are fit for license. On two occasions in the not so recent past there have been these differences over bulls which the licensing officers have in the first instance turned down on the


ground that they were too small. On each occasion, Mr. Butler appealed to a referee, as is provided by the Act, and on each occasion the referee decided in his favour. When the bulls were mature they turned out to be outstandingly successful, highly rated by the Milk Marketing Board and very valuable to Mr. Butler and those who use them.
I admit that Mr. Butler is a man who expresses himself with some freedom and has a nice flow of language. He is a vigorous character, and he was annoyed when his two bulls had these aspersions cast upon them. He now admits that he may have said things to the licensing officer which he subsequently regretted. At all events, there was a certain feeling at least on Mr. Butler's part that the licensing officers may not have been entirely fair to him, and it may be that the strength of his language in some way had made them feel that he was treating them rather hardly.
It was in these circumstances that he submitted, in December 1962, a bull called Westonbirt Maryson for licensing, it then being 11 months old, one month older than necessary for testing. Along came the licensing officer, the same licensing officer with whom Mr. Butler had previously had dealings, and he rejected the bull. Mr. Butler appealed to a referee. Directly after that there came the cold spell which we all remember in the early days of 1963, which was notably worse in the Cotswolds than in any other part of England. The snow lay for six weeks. It was so deep as to cover all the walls of Mr. Butler's farm completely from sight. On no fewer than six nights the frost was more than 40 degrees. All the water mains were frozen. There was no flowing water at all, and it was astonishing that Mr. Butler did not lose more beasts than he did. In fact, only one died during this period, but all of them suffered severely, particularly from dehydration because of the lack of moisture. The bull Westonbirt Maryson, which was not very old at the time, suffered very severely because of the terrible conditions.
The referee came to see the bull as soon as the thaw occurred, in February. It is not surprising that from the referee's point of view he should come then because there was a certain urgency in

licensing the bull, which had at that time reached an age which made it necessary for the licensing to be done quickly. On the other hand, the referee saw the bull at a time when it had very nearly expired as a consequence of the weather to which it had been exposed.
In the event, the referee rejected the bull and did not pass it for licensing. Mr. Butler protested about the weather and the conditions in which it had left the bull, and he tells me that in reply the referee said that he was not allowed to take the weather into consideration. I do not know if there is any misunderstanding there, but it may be that the referee had in mind something to do with the timing of the licensing. If he said that and meant it, then in any sense it would be untrue, because he is entitled to take everything into consideration. If it was an excuse, then it was a poor one.
Under these circumstances, this decision was definitely unfair to Mr. Butler and would not have happened but for the previous history between Mr. Butler and the personalities concerned. Not enough allowance was made, firstly, for the type of bull which Mr. Butler was breeding—a late maturing bull—and secondly no allowance was made for the exceptional weather, the likes of which has not been seen in this century before and which I very much hope will not be seen again in our part of the world. The result of having to slaughter the bull was a substantial financial loss to Mr. Butler, who protested as long as he could and had to be summoned before the matter was disposed of.
The loss was about £300 to £440, the progeny and the disruption of the breeding plans which Mr. Butler carefully makes. From previous correspondence with the Minister, for which I am grateful, I am told that as legislation stands there is no possibility of the Minister doing anything for Mr. Butler. He cannot be reimbursed for the loss he has suffered. I would suggest to the Minister that the value of this debate would be if he could review very closely the system whereby these bulls are licensed. I think, and the Tetbury branch of the N.F.U. thinks the same, because it has passed a resolution to this effect, that the farmer should have a right to agree to the personality of the


referee. At present he does not have that right.
Very great care is taken by the Ministry of Agriculture to bring a referee not personally connected too closely with the farmer or owner concerned. Nevertheless one knows that in the hierarchy of organisations the views of certain members of the hierarchy are naturally passed on, and it may be that the reputation of Mr. Butler as an awkward customer had gone before him. At all events, this case went wrong. The bull is dead and Mr. Butler suffered financial loss which cannot be reimbursed. The machinery should be looked at.
It is very difficult in a subjective matter such as this, when one man's opinion as to whether a bull is good is set against another, for the aggrieved person to prove that any wrong has taken place in the way in which the selection was made.
The Minister may say that if Mr. Butler thinks that he has been done in the eye his remedy is in the courts. It is very difficult to prove a negative in the courts. I am not casting aspersions against the veracity or rectitude of the licensing referees in this matter, but if I wish to do so I would find it extremely difficult. It is always open to a referee in a subjective matter such as this to come to a conclusion, perhaps without realising that he is being unfair, which is not based upon the facts, as they ought to be examined. I do believe that this system ought to be looked at again. The damage to Mr. Butler has been considerable, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able tonight to say that the system will be reconsidered in the near future.

1.30 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries, and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) for having raised this subject tonight of the case of Mr. Butler's bull, and I am glad for this opportunity to answer. The hon. Member has taken an interest in this matter, judging from the dates of the letters, for more than eighteen months, and I should like to explain the action which we have taken. First, however, I should like also to explain briefly the bull licensing arrangements and the way in which they operate.
The licensing of bulls was introduced more than thirty years ago under the terms of the Improvement of Livestock Act, 1931. Its purpose has been to improve the quality of our national herd by preventing the use, as breeding animals, of inferior bulls. It is an offence under that Act to keep any bull more than ten months old except under a licence or permit issued by my right hon. Friend or, in Scotland, by the Secretary of State. The procedure is that the owner, or his agent, applies to the Ministry for a licence, and the bull is then examined by one of our livestock husbandry advisers; that is, by an officer of the National Agricultural Advisory Service who has specialist knowledge and experience of livestock. The Minister has power to refuse a licence, but only on certain specified grounds.
If there are no grounds for refusing a licence, then one is issued. If, however, a licence is refused, the owner has a statutory right of appeal and a referee is chosen by the Minister from a list of persons nominated; in the case of a pedigree animal by the appropriate breed society or, in the case of a non-pedigree bull, by the National Farmers' Union. If the rejection was on veterinary grounds, the referee is chosen from among nominees of the British Veterinary Association.
The inspecting officer has no hand in the choice of a referee, nor any knowledge of who will be appointed in any particular case. The referee inspects the bull and makes his recommendation to the Minister that a licence should be granted or refused. The Minister is bound under the Act of 1931 to abide by the referee's decision and if the recommendation is against granting a licence, then the bull must be castrated or slaughtered within fourteen days. If the owner refuses either course, then he is liable to proceedings under the Act. I should emphasise the owner's right of appeal to a referee who is entirely independent of the Minister, and the fact that the referee's decision is final. These are important safeguards for farmers and breeders.
There are, naturally, complaints from time to time about the way in which the system works in individual cases, and it would be surprising if a breeder was not disappointed if a highly prized bull


is rejected. Yet, the number of complaints is not large, remembering that some 13,000 bulls are examined each year, nearly a thousand, on average, being rejected. I think we can claim that the system is fair and reasonable and it is accepted by the industry as a whole as serving a most useful purpose in helping to improve our livestock.
I should like now to turn to Mr. Butler's case. I would say, first, that from all the investigations we have made, I am perfectly convinced that Mr. Butler. although he believes in calling a spade a spade, can be assured by the hon. Member for Stroud that our officer was not influenced in any way by any action of Mr. Butler or by any remarks which Mr. Butler may have made.
This bull, Westonbirt Maryson, was a pedigree Friesian bull, born in January, 1962. In December of that year Mr. Butler applied for a licence on behalf of his son-in-law and daughter, Mr. and Mrs. Holland, who owned the bull. The bull was inspected—and here I do not think that the hon. Gentleman got his facts quite right, but if he examines them he will find that I am giving a true report of how things went—and our Livestock Husbandry Adviser deferred a decision on it because it showed inadequate growth.
He inspected it again in February, so it was not until the second inspection by our Livestock Adviser that the licence was refused because, in the words of the Act, he bull appeared to be
of inferior conformation and likely to beget inferior progeny.
That was the reason for the licence being refused, not because it was badly brought out.
Mr. Butler appealed against the decision, and a referee from a panel nominated by the British Friesian Cattle Society was nominated. He looked at the hull a month later. The hon. Gentleman laid stress on the fact that there had been a hard winter. We all agree that it is often difficult to give stock the best attention under these conditions, particularly if Mr. Butler was accustomed to rearing his stock out of doors. Nevertheless, one would have thought that having been told that the inspector did not want to give a decision because of its inadequate growth, and having been given three months' grace, Mr. Butler would have

found a little extra food for this bull if it was as valuable as he said it was to ensure its extra growth to a decent size.
The referee recommended that the refusal to grant a licence should be confirmed, and the procedure then was that a notice was served on Mr. Butler, into whose ownership the bull had passed from his son-in-law and daughter, requiring him to have the bull slaughtered or castrated. He failed to comply with the notice, and he was prosecuted by the Ministry at Tetbury Magistrates' Court in September, 1963. He was found guilty and fined, and shortly after that he had the bull slaughtered.
Over the past three years Mr. Butler has been in correspondence with the Department, both directly and through the, hon. Gentleman who has raised his case. I appreciate that he feels strongly about it, and I am sorry that he should feel that justice has not been done, but I think that I have showed fairly clearly that the procedure as laid down in the Statute was followed, and from my examination of the case I am satisfied that it was properly and impartially handled.
As I said earlier, the Livestock Adviser deferred a decision on the bull until it was 13 months old, which is three months beyond the licensing age, to give it every chance to develop, and the referee saw it a month later than that. I merely emphasise that if I had the chance that Mr. Butler had, and if I saw that the bull was not big enough, I would have done something about it during that time. It is very rarely that a bull is given so long a period in which to justify itself before a final decision is taken on the issue of a licence.
In his correspondence with us Mr. Butler has argued that the condition of the bull at the time when it was rejected had been adversely affected by the exceptionally severe weather conditions in the hard winter, but when the bull was first seen, in December, the bad weather had not set in, and when it was inspected in February, 1963, our Livestock Husbandry Adviser took into account the effect of the weather conditions from which Mr. Butler's bulls were not the only ones to suffer.
The hon. Gentleman made a plea through me to the Minister and the Ministry for some system whereby farmers can be reimbursed for the loss of a bull that


is rejected. There is nothing in any legislation to do this, and I do not think that it is necessary. Anybody who takes up a breeding programme must be prepared—this is part of the game—that a bull will sometimes not be any use. We could not possibly put this in or we would be faced with continual claims. That is not what the scheme is for.
I can add nothing more usefully to this case. We are sorry about Mr. Butler's feelings and sympathise with him and understand his disappointment. But I am satisfied that the case was properly handled and has been given great consideration over the months. I have here a small file of the correspondence on the subject. After all, given the referee's

recommendation, the Minister had no alternative but to require the animal to be slaughtered or castrated. As regards the licensing system generally, I am satisfied that it continues to serve a useful purpose and I believe that this is the view of very many livestock farmers and breeders.
I hope that Mr. Butler will ultimately forget about this bull and have no more severe winters. I have emphasised that there was no bias by our officer and I hope that Mr. Butler will forget about the incident and that his breeding programme will not be unduly upset.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Two o'clock.